Dems Hold All the Cards on Iraq, So Why Are They Folding?

Remember earlier this summer when Harry Reid and the Democrats vowed they were "going to hold the president's feet to the fire" on Iraq? Well, now it appears they've decided to play footsie with the White House instead and take what one Democratic strategist calls "a more nuanced approach" that includes backing off demands to set a firm withdrawal date.

In anticipation of next week's inevitably sunny side up -- and statistically cherry-picked -- report from Gen. Petraeus, the White House has cranked up its spin machine, and the Democrats are falling into their default duck-and-cover mode.

So we get Bush hopping off a plane in Australia after his eight-hour photo-op layover in Iraq and telling the Deputy Prime Minister: "We're kicking ass" -- while Democratic leaders let it be known they are hoping "to manage expectations" by lowering their sights on Iraq.

Bush is certainly not kicking ass in Iraq but next week he may be kicking ass in Washington.

Just last week, Reid was promising "I will not let these Republicans hide. When the Senate returns to Washington, I will force them to take vote, after vote, after vote on bringing an end to the war in Iraq."

Now the air on Capitol Hill is full of talk of "bipartisan compromise" and even Ken Salazar's insipid proposal, which Reid himself had previously rejected as a "toothless tiger," is getting renewed interest.

"I can't believe how Democrats are playing this game," a Republican strategist told me the other night. "They hold all the cards -- and they are folding."

This spineless approach is the last thing Democrats need. Do they have no memory of 2002 and 2004, when caution and timidity led to defeat? If 2008 doesn't turn out to be a landslide for Democrats, it will be because of the seeds of caution being planted now.

Perhaps the weight of Katie Couric's take on Iraq -- "real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability" -- was too much to bear. In the same way that once Cronkite turned against Vietnam Johnson knew the war was lost, it appears the Democrats believe that once Couric embraced the surge, it could no longer be resisted.

So next week, the collective wisdom of 16 intelligence agencies and the Government Accounting Office may be eclipsed by the cherry-picked stats of Petraeus and the administration. As the Washington Post reports, apparently certain kinds of violence in Iraq just don't count in the eyes of the administration. Literally -- they aren't being counted. Shot in the head from the front? Doesn't count. Shiite on Shiite bloodshed? Doesn't count (this despite escalating warfare between rival Shi'a groups in Basra). Sunni on Sunni violence? Doesn't count. As those radicals in the Iraq Study Group put it in their report: "Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

And good political strategy is difficult to make when you are constantly wondering how your decisions will look in a future attack ad. "This administration's capabilities of having Rose Garden press conferences and the kind of punitive rhetoric they're using is concerning to Members," explained Rep. Ellen Tauscher. "I don't think we have a vehicle [for withdrawal] that will get 60 votes in the Senate. In the absence of that, we're naked."

Well, better naked than castrated.

The Democrats' thinking on this is unfathomable -- it makes no sense logically, morally or politically. They have the majority of the American people wanting to bring this war to an end; a constant stream of tragic news from Iraq; and a president committed to "stay the course" despite all evidence that the course we are on is taking us over the cliff.

It's time for Democrats to stop sounding the retreat on ending the war and actually pay attention to John McCain, who said that if they "are serious that we ought to stop the war" they should "bring up a bill to cut off the funding and end it."

McCain is right. Exercising their Constitutional power of the purse is exactly what Democrats need to do if they are serious about ending the war. And if they are serious about winning in 2008.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[realistic2008]

What a disgrace indeed. The Democrats whine and whine but contrary to the administration can't never find an actionable way to be relevant.

In the meantime we are falling deeper an deeper in a hole which it may take a miracle to stop it and a greater one to make us able to climb it.

[curiousgeezer]

MINIMUM WAGE, BIG DEAL!! It looks like they traded their souls to get it! How are they able to look anyone but republicans in the eye?

[swampygirl67]

It is becoming increasingly clear that there is only one candidate in the Presidential race that has the SPINE and the courage to get us out of Iraq the day after he is elected. That candidate is Bill Richardson. Democrats in Congress lack the courage or conviction to stand up to this President and change America's course. The other Presidential aspirants are not much better. If I hear Barack Obama brag one more time that he "opposed this war from the beginning," I'm going to puke. He never had to cast a vote on it, since he was a state legislator when Congress made the decision. The issue is not who voted how back when, the issue is WHAT DO WE DO NOW? The other candidates seem determined to justify our presence there, insisting that we can't withdraw quickly, it takes months and months to get our troops out, etc. This is nothing but weakness and rationalization. If the President of the U.S. says, "I want every U.S. troop out of that country in six months, and if we have to leave used equipment behind, so be it," those troops would be out in six months. Our Congress and the majority of our Presidential candidates simply lack the will to call for this kind of immediate end to the war. And meanwhile, American soldiers and Iraqi civilians keep dying. If we don't begin taking Bill Richardson seriously as the only candidate who is determined to end this war (and smart enough to do it right), we have nobody but ourselves to blame if it continues for the next ten years.

[ronnieponnie]

Is it possible that the illegal wiretapping of this Repugnant administration has uncovered some dirt on Reid and Pelosi, and consequently they have folded to keep the dirt from becoming public? Otherwise, why would they not honor the victory the Democrats gave them to do something about this mistake of a war?

[LostInTheStars]

The Democrats do not hold all the cards on Iraq. Why is this so difficult to see? Just as there was no way for Democrats to stop the Supreme Court from stealing the 2000 election for Bush, so now the Democrats cannot stop Bush from doing what he wants in Iraq. The only people who can stop Bush are moderate Republicans - and all indications are that they are not going to do it.
The great failing of the Democrats was giving Bush war powers in the first place. This did far more harm than Reid and Pelosi’s reputed lack of courage now. It would make more sense to be angry with Kerry, Clinton, and Edwards who foolishly thought that authorizing the war would help them become president. (I say this as an Edwards’ supporter.­)
I agree with putting pressure on Reid and Pelosi, but it is a mistake to call them pathetic or to threaten to bolt the party. The very reason we are all exasperated and fighting among ourselves is that Bush is the one holding all the cards. Too many Democrats have expected too much after gaining a thin majority in Congress. Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of this dark period of history.

[Lafontaine]

There is a tragic irony in the fact that the War on Terror may well be lost not in the Middle East but on the border of the Rio Grande.

The seeds for a devastating attack upon the United States were planted long before 9/11 for all who had eyes to see.

In 1996, five years before 9/11/2001, Osama Bin Laden officially declared War against the United States. This was not done in secret.

The Declaration of War was published in Al Quds Al Arabia, a London-based newspaper. In this Declaration Osama Bin Laden not only declares War but he specifically states his grievances and objectives. This Declaration of War was sent to U.S. Embassies. It was published in newspapers in Europe and the United States. This Declaration of War may be the first such Declaration to be so detailed and precise in stating the reason(s) for declaring war, the means of war and the goals and objectives of war. Much can be gleaned from this document.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Every American citizen should be outraged that decisive action was not taken at that time to destroy al-Qaeda.

It is a mockery that George Tenant who was the head of the CIA under both Democratic and Republican administrations from Al-Qaeda’s Declaration of War past the attack on 9/11 received that highest civilian honor this nation can bestow: The Medal of Freedom.

The fact that a President of the United States who professes to believe in the “Rule of Law” does not enforce the immigration laws of this nation is a source of puzzlement.

That a President of the United States can on the one hand justify the War in Iraq upon the premise that U.S. soldiers must die in Iraq to prevent the terrorist from attacking U.S. soil on the one hand and not secure our borders on the other is breathtaking.

This rank hypocrisy is not lost upon the average American.

[realitytrumpsbull]

You gotta wonder...n­obody's going to want to chop down the government donut tree, so chances are they sold the axe to do that job with some time ago, probably to some third-world country for the scrap metal value.

Congress, anymore, pretty much just seems like a check-kiting body, they'll sign as many rubber checks as Bush tells em to, so don't hold your breath for a big 'end the war' vote...

[ALC]

Reid and Pelosi obviously have poor math skills. They seem to think that they're still the minority party. The democrats need new leadership to go along with their majority status. These two have managed to get their party rated down in the gutter with the sorriest excuse for a president that this country's ever had. ALL IN LESS THAN A YEAR'S TIME. The dems have good, courageous people that can handle these jobs. Such as Jim Webb, Thomas Murtha and Joe Biden just to name a few. They have more balls than all of those republican "chickenhawks" put together that got us into this mess in Iraq. The democrats in congress need to replace the two wimpy bozos running the show for them now.

[MyNameIsJames]

Democratic Senators ran around their states during the August recess complaining that they don't have a veto proof majority. THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!!!

The real question is, "Does the President have enough votes in the Senate to keep this war going?"

This is the question that Senate Democrats must answer.

[blaze]

Dems do not "hold all the cards on Iraq". That was a smoke blowing statement by a Republican that Arianna chose to second.
The Republicans have full control of the media on this... they have control of the administra­tion... they have control of the "Conventional Wisdom" because they have the media. They have control of most of the troops and most of the generals. They are spending millions of dollars on P.R. on this, and it's working for them.
All that the Dems have is a 1 or 2 vote majority in the Senate, a majority opinion in "the polls" which is a nebulous authority at best, and the ability to filibuster a funding request (I just don't see millions of Americans in the street protesting this war). Does anyone here attacking the Dems think that we wouldn't be leaving soon if the Dems had super majorities in both houses?
Dems (maybe) have the ability to completely cut funding which is a Draconian measure that I think is dangerous for the US as it could lead to a permanent Republican majority. My thinking about this is that Al Queda in Iraq and various other factions could escalate after we leave and the Dems would be held absolutely responsible here in America. We would all have to bite our tongues and shudder as the war for ascendence in Iraq continues after we leave and it could get brutal. That said, it may come to a time when I would choose that option anyway. I mourn our fallen troops. This stinks to high heaven, but Dems have to work this toward consensus. I truly believe that we need a solid Republican buy-in to ending this occupation.

[divert]

Okay, who has alternatvies to suggest?
There's MoveOn's idea to challenge nialbiting Dems in primaries. Any other ways to hold their feet to the fire, or have a Plan B if they continue to wuss out?

[Richard729]

That General Petraeus will carry Bush's water is a foregone conclusion. After all, it's far easier for G. W. Bush to go general shopping than it is for him to go judge shopping as he has managed to do on many occasions. Not all federal judges are all that eager to rubber stamp a tyrannical, despotic regime such as Bush/Cheney, especially since their legacy will endure far longer than Bush's remaining time in office.

The modern 21st Century Generals in the all-volunteer Army, however, have proven themselves to be little more than toadies clamoring for another star on their shoulders or suits-in-waiting for a nice cushy job on a defense contractor's board of directors or even a more lucrative job on K Street as a lobbyist for the Republican Party's corrupt corporate CEOs and benefactors.

Maybe at some point, let's say, after January 20, 2009 and after David Petraeus eases his way out of the U.S. Army, will we know for sure his true feelings and observations on the worst president in the history of the United States who sold our country and the world a deeply flawed and disastrous bill of goods, the Iraq War.

Though the Democrats possess a slim majority in both houses of congress it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are still in charge and who call all the shots. Since when did either party show they give a tinker's damn about what the American people want?

By 2008 we will have convinced the American voters that we do indeed have a one-party government: the Democrats and the Republicans. It may even be called the "Liebermanization" of our political system of non-democracy. We can hardly wait for General David Petraeus's non-assessment on how things are going (or not going) in Iraq.

[AkronBob]

Sad to say, but there is MILITARY PORK in every distict.
After all, that's one of the main reasons Bush invaded.

[spencerh]

Simple. They're largely spineless weaklings. They're afraid of being called names: weak, defeatist, ineffective. The funny thing is, by doing what they're doing, they are becoming exactly that.

[sword]

The democrats have the majority in the senate and the house. They got it because of public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. Clearly politics is not driving their decisions on the war.

Something
else
is.