Ending the War: Time for the Dems to Play Hardball

Taking a page from America's retailers, President Bush is getting a jump on the coming battle over Iraq war funding. On Monday, he added an additional $45.9 billion in supplemental war funding to the $150.5 billion he'd already requested, and then turned up the heat on Congress to sign off on the $196.4 billion before heading home for the holidays. Only 60 more browbeating days until Christmas!

And you have to give Bush credit. Despite record-low approval ratings, he's unabashedly playing -- and winning -- the PR game on the war. By incrementally adding to his funding request, he made his ongoing plundering of our treasury to pursue his disastrous Iraq policy seem relatively modest. The headlines all focused on the $46 billion he's just added to the tab -- not the $196 billion he's really after.

And while his language about "supporting the troops," and "providing our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done" is well past its sell-by date, the Democrats have yet to reframe the funding debate. So Bush replays his patriotic greatest hits while the blood of our soldiers continues to flow -- in the process making our country not more, but less, safe.

The president was feeling so cocky he even pulled out the "s" word -- "succeed" -- that had been in cold storage for a while. "Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught in the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C.," he said. "[Congress] ought to make sure our troops have what it takes to succeed." Whatever that means in Iraq these days.

The Democrats meanwhile remain divided and confounded on how to stand up to the president on Iraq. House invertebrates like Steny Hoyer, who foolishly think ducking for cover is a winning '08 strategy, are urging a cautious approach, suggesting that any hardball stop-the-war efforts will leave red state Dems vulnerable to attacks for undermining the troops.

Senate leaders, including Carl Levin, are also treading lightly. Levin's latest gambit: put Bush on the installment plan, giving him only part of the money and forcing him to come asking for more in June, after the next Congressionally mandated report from Gen. Petraeus (September redux?). Levin's plan would also aim for a complete withdrawal from Iraq within nine months -- but this would only be a goal, not a date certain requirement.

Hey, why accomplish today what you can put off until tomorrow -- or June?

And some Democrats just seem resigned to the notion that their options are limited. As Henry Waxman told Politico: "If you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes." It's what David Sirota calls the "Innocent Bystander Fable" -- the idea that since Democrats don't have the 60 votes needed to end Senate debate or the 66 votes needed to override a Bush veto, the war in Iraq is out of their hands.

But the truth is, Democrats have all the votes they need to stop the war -- if they are willing to use the power given them by the Constitution to block the supplemental funding bill unless it includes a deadline for bringing the troops home. As Norm Ornstein told me: "Whatever the White House sends to the House is constitutionally merely a suggestion." The prerogative to bring a funding bill to the floor rests entirely with the majority -- which, in case Democrats have forgotten, is theirs. As for the Senate, Democrats there would only have to find 41 votes to block the supplemental funding bill.

I'm sorry for this refresher in Congressional Power 101, but Democratic leaders seem to need it. The White House cannot force Congress to spend money. Period. The end. The imperial presidency has not gone that far. At least not yet. So Democrats, who have the public behind them, need to be unequivocal that they are simply not going to continue to fund the war unless and until the president agrees to change course and set a date certain for ending it.

They need to make it clear that they are not pulling the plug on the troops -- indeed, they will be authorizing bridge funding for armored vehicles and veterans' health benefits, among other essential expenses, when they take up the annual defense appropriations bill in December. And they can make it clear that they will give the president and the Pentagon all the money they need to safely and responsibly bring the troops home.

It's a battle of wills. A test of leadership. And a contest to frame the debate in the public's mind.

The president took a preemptive shot across the bow on Monday, playing the funding-equals-troop-support card, and placing the ball squarely in Congress' court. Democrats can't afford to sit back on their heels and wait until next year to take on the president (or worse yet, have a replay of the 2007 supplemental funding fight and cave to the president's phony "before the holidays" demands).

They need to begin reframing the funding fight now -- hammering home the message that it's the president's obstinacy that is jeopardizing the well-being of our troops and the safety of our country.

This is not the time for caution and playing it safe. This is the time to force the president's hand.

Comments

[racetoinfinity]

You'd think, given the polls, they'd stop worrying that Joe Blue Collar will think they're anti-military. Calcified fears die hard, but they (the congressinal Dems) are acting like childish scaredy-cats.

[splashy]

It's still a scam. The money needs to be cut off, period. All it does is fund the right wing politicians and their cronies. That was the entire point.

[ksecus]

Oh please. These are the Dems youre talking about here. Courage is foreign to them. Theyll break the second a Republican says boo.
And Im a hard core yellow dog.
Ive seen it repeatedly.

[sheine]

It is not about Iraq. The Democratic Congress caves on all issues. They just confirmed a judge with questionable attitudes about race. They can't pass a serious energy bill - they have constituents in the coal and automobile industry as well as the biofuel farce to help corn framers.

Either the Democratic Party will change soon or a new party will represent the will of the public. Until then if I cannot vote for Stephen Colbert I shall vote for a third party as a protest. The combination of Hillary, Pelosi, and Reid will not solve the nation's serious problems.

[air2air]

Do you remember Saddam Hussein, or Al Qaida in Iraq? They both did a lot of really bad things to a lot of people.

Maybe you guys should read up on this bit of news.

[deminmo]

Yes Saddam did horrible things to his own people
and while he did, no one stopped him. America
gave Saddam money and equipment before the first
Iraq invasion. And Bush had no exit plan before
he took out Saddam.

[ElkoJohn]

good grief Charlie Brown, then why don't we invade Burma & Darfur?

[deminmo]

President Bush also asked for money to outfit
a stealth bomber with 2 30,000lb bunker buster
bombs. How does that work in Iraq? How does
going into Iran to destroy the Natanaz nuclear
plant, which is closest to the Iraqi border,
in any way help the troops? Starting WWIII and
the involvement of other nations, how does that
make America more secure? Bush doesn't have to
ask permission to hit Iran. He does need to get
the money to fund it.

With a very large portion of Americans against
a war with Iran, and Congress already on the
S-list of a lot of Americans, sitting on their
hands is NOT an option! We, out here in
America, better be prepared for a very big
fight if Congress gives Bush what he wants!

[Professor73]

Not a chance in hell.

[Jules36]

The Dems need to grow a set before they can start to play hardball.

Maybe the time has come to seriously look for an independent candidate and a third party. I'll bet half of the voting public would join up in a heartbeat... why are we so jaded to believe the only viable system is a two-party system?

[ElkoJohn]

the new Constitutional Party can run the Paul/Kucinich ticket.

[racetoinfinity]

Nope. They're on opposite ends of the spectrum re corporate power. Paul believes in laissez-faire so called "free" markets, as little regulation of corporations as possible, and as little taxation for the public good (agencies that protect us) as possible - "drowning the government in the bathtub."

Kucinich is for sensible governmental regulation of corporations and for promoting the public good, including an eq uitable tax system, and for a the role of intelligent well managed government to serve the public good.

Diametrically opposed there.

[AlphaDoc]

>It's a battle of wills. A test of leadership.<

And therein lies the problem. Those few Democrats with the will to lead and the conscience required to do the right thing are not in charge, and they are far outnumbered by those who would continue to play political games with the lives of our soldiers and the future of this country.

[LLyonnoc]

The reason the Democrats will not end the war is that Hillary has mandated that they do nothing to make the Democratic party look less warrior-like than the GOP. Therefore, despite everything, rest assured that until Hillary's campaign is over the Democratic party will not do anything to bring about the end of this horrid war. Thanks, Hillary.

[longislandlol]

Why are democrats weak in this particular Congress? Where are the voices of reason? Do they only think of trying to please everyone all the time? This is the Hillary democrat-- I can be all things people want me to be-- just don't ask me to loudly denounce the war. Interesting-- The movie "Hoax" about the Clifford Irving book on Howard Hugh all the executives at McGraw Hill went along with him--because Americans like to believe in people-- so Irving sold them all on what turned out to be a hoax-- the analogy here is that the dems in Congress are the people at McGraw-Hill back in 1971....

[JoeLosFeliz]

I am so sick of this war and so sick of the Democrats not doing anything to end it.

It never should have happened and it shouldn't continue.

[wsblake]

Absolutely correct. Ultimately, that's precisely how congress ended the War in Vietnam. They cut off the funding.

[argeec]

I'm pleased to see you bring this up, Arianna. Now if you would go the next step and explain that congress doesn't defund the occupation because they are afraid of the Israel lobby.

[timbyrnes]

I think the key for liberals to prevail on this issue is to fashion their own slogans to counter 'war on terror' and 'support our troups.'
How bout;
We would like to end the death and destruction in Iraq.

We would like to bring our sons, husbands and brothers home where we can support them better.

Or we Americans would like to rejoin the community of nations and work for glogal peace and abandon coercion, colonialism, and blackmail.

We would rather spend our tax dollars on flying our boys home than on sending smart bombs to Iran.

[tdterry1999]

Grow up people.There is no way anybody going to end the war.Even if they did they would have to go back in a year.It would be worst then.So get over it.Thank You.

[ElkoJohn]

once Bush attacks Iran, he might be stopped by Putin.