by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 16, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

ejecting a resolution that would have forced President George W. Bush to withdraw U.S. combat troops in 120 days, the U.S. Senate handed Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) a narrow defeat [50-48], when two Democrats and one independent voted with Republicans. Two other antiwar resolutions went down during the last six-weeks, attesting, if nothing else, to changing political strategy well-advance of the 2008 presidential elections. Republicans still believe they hold the cards when it comes to the Iraq war and national security. Democrats hold mixed views as to whether an abrupt exit helps their chances. More Democrats believe continuing the Iraq war hurts the GOP and helps Democrats heading into the next elections. Whether House or Senate Democrats agree, Bush is still commander-in-chief, responsible for starting, prosecuting and finishing the war.

      House Democrats hoped their resolution calling for a specific timetable and exit strategy would catch on in the Senate, where cooler heads prevail. “We hope the leaders in the House have paid close attention to what just took place in the upper chamber,” White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore read a statement, warning the House against partisanship. “Now is not the time for divisive legislation aimed at scoring political points at home,” revealing how politics intersects with national security. Neither Republicans nor Democrats can figure out whether the war helps of hinders reelection efforts, though most believe it hurts the GOP. Voting along party lines, the House Appropriations Committed voted to attach a withdrawal plan to a spending bill needed to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With Democrats holding a slim majority [51-49], cutting off funding seems unlikely.

      Since the 2006 midyear elections, Democrats thought they had a mandate to de-fund the war. Narrow majorities in the House and Senate don't give Democrats a clear mandate to end the war. Most polls show overwhelming disapproval about how the war started but not how to end it. White there's more opposition than support, a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll indicates that the country is evenly divided on whether Congress should de-fund the war [48%-45%]. Written by Reid, the failed resolution mandated a “phased redeployment” of U.S. forces no later than 120 days after enactment. Both Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) are hung up on the illegitimacy of the war. Others like Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del), a presidential candidate, believe Bush has placed troops in harm's way, inflicting unconscionable damage to the U.S. military.

      Highlighting the partisan divide, the Senate overwhelmingly passed two non-binding resolutions, imploring the Congress to not pass any resolution endangering U.S. troops. Putting the armed forces into a shooting gallery—no matter how well-intentioned—doesn't satisfy the obligation to protect the troops. Biden's views echo the March 4 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that shows most Americans believe the U.S. is losing the war [61%-29%], even with Bush's troop surge. Most Americans don't support the war but get stuck on what to do next. Democrats' legislation known as “Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act,” sets benchmarks for the Iraqi government to control sectarian violence, something measured by a progressively lower body count. War critic, Vietnam vet and ex-marine Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Penn.) says Bush is breaking the military.

      Passing legislation or token resolutions won't stop the White House from prosecuting the war until Bush leaves office Jan. 20, 2009. American voters will decide the direction of the war when electing new leaders Nov. 5, 2008. It sickens war critics to watch young American men and women injured and die in what looks like a losing battle. While the troops surge appears to reduce attacks around Baghdad, there's no evidence that it will slow the bloody insurgency claiming nearly 3,200 U.S. lives. Today's battle in he House is over a $124-billion spending bill that includes everything but the kitchen sink. Packed into the bill is billions of aid for veterans' healthcare, more aid for Katrina victims, children's healthcare and even aid to spinach farmers. Appropriations bills, like this one, are so loaded with pork that it loses the original purpose, benefits or anything productive.

      Instead of wasting time trying to de-fund the war, Democrats should let Bush play out his hand between now and the election. Judging by mounting scandals at the Justice Department and elsewhere, the White House has its hands full putting out political fires. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have trouble selling the war to skeptical voters, worried about how the extravagant price tag threatens important entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and federal aid to education. “If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows us home, the terrorists will follow us home,” said Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), reciting the same worn out talking points no longer resonating with American public. Whether Bush gets his $124 billion, voters feel more and more shortchanged. Keeping the status quo promises riches for Democrats and a nightmare for the GOP as the election draws near.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.