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.

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

Comments

[SamThornton]

The dirty little secret inside the Beltway is that there is a consensus among members of both parties -- particularly among Congressional leaders -- on the neoconservative agenda of pursuing U.S. world hegemony through any means, including preemptive war.

It's not that Democrats are too cowardly to confront Bush on ending the Iraq adventure. On the contrary, most Democrats in Congress agree with the Bush agenda despite their vociferous public posturing.

In this regard, actions speak louder than words.

What this signals is a profound disconnect between what most voters want and what Congress and the Administration is willing to deliver. It's a disconnect so profound that it's not likely to end with the 2008 election, any more than it ended with the 2006 election.

One thing this puts into stark relief is that we've reached the limits in the ability of our form of government to govern with the consent of the people. At this point, the only way to change the policy may be to change our form of government.

While that might seem unlikely, one shouldn't forget, particularly if one occupies national office, just how swiftly authoritarian governments collapsed in the face of public dissent in the turbulent 1990s.

[IzaakSzerman]

"... the only way to change the policy may be to change our form of government."

Yes. It appears that the American empire's version of Capitalism has collapsed just as Soviet Communism collapsed 15 years ago.

The only thing that is concealing this fact is the crippling national debt brought about by the Cheney/Bush regime. One sh*t load of collapse is hiding behind this Bush debt!!!

[amizetta]

I have said many times recently that the Dems need to show some leadership and stop this insane war. If cutting the funding works, so be it. It worked as a way to end Nam why not Iraq?

[IntelligentDesign]

It is not possible to operate a government broken and held hostage by war criminals; this is something that has not quite sunk in yet, even by progressive Democrats - this band of thugs is not going to take congress seriously because they don't have to, the precedent of the Unitarian Executive has already been set and reinforced time and time again over the past five years, starting with the 2002 Iraq war resolution.

We are all passengers on a hijacked runaway train headed into the dark unknown, and the people in charge are standing by wringing their hands and eloquently pontificating about why there is nothing that can be done, and offering weak reassurance that maybe it will all come out okay if we just sit tight and hope real hard that we don't crash and burn - nice plan.

I was very disappointed and dismayed by the progressive pundits and new congressional leaders, when just minutes after our courageous and hard fought battle to gain a foothold against the Bush administration was won in the '06 midterms, they urged of all things restraint.

RESTRAINT??? RESTRAINT???? Huh???? That's like saying: "Citizens of runaway train, we have waged a heroic and epic battle to wrest control of this train from the hijackers, behold the emergency break cord is now in our hands - however, we are not going to pull said cord because it may upset some of the passengers".

The bastards that have stolen our country are not going to give it back unless forced to do so - there should be no business as usual on Capitol Hill until Bush and Cheney are ousted from power - that is our number one priority.

[TorH125]

I agree, arrest, incarcerate the neocons and impeach Bush, Cheney and other war criminals, put Pelosi or Murtha in White house until January 2009. First order of business is to take our troops home in a safe and orderly manner.

[OldKnute]

GOSH!!!!

Well, I still think Nancy Pelosi has the best advantages in mind, NOT just for the Dems, but for America.

If the Dems would have run in screaming for impeachment, who would have been left to run America?

Dick Cheney?

Right!

And we would be knee deep in KBR, Halliburton and Blackwater contracts by now, black painted tanks everywhere and Nukes raining down on Iran.

Impeach BOTH Bush and Cheney?

Be real!

In Constitutional terms, that would have been a violation of her office, Speaker of the House is NEXT in line after the President and Vice President. The Supreme Court would have stopped all actions of JOINT Impeachment, as a simply political power-grab, and with good reason. NOT that this would have been Nancy`s intent but it sure would raise eyebrows around the world.

If Nancy would have stepped aside to avert any HINT of scandal or to show here intentions for the GOOD of the PEOPLE, that would leave the Senate Pro Tem. Robert Byrd.

Look, I love Robert Byrd, the man has grown beyond all expectations in his years in office, but he ALSO has grown quite elderly. For reasons of his health, I am sure many might object to his taking over the Presidency in time of war. Yeah.

So who would this cascade of delegations, impeachments, avocations for the good of the people and health and age considerations leave us with????


Condoleezza Rice!!!!!!! Secretary of State.

Umm?

Is there any in favor of Condoleezza running the FREE WORLD?

Well,,,,, maybe,,,,,, if we wanted Colin Powell strapped to the first Nuke to bomb Iran.

I think Nancy is doing JUST FINE!

A brilliant lady!!!!

Use the LAW to uncover as MUCH CORRUPTION as she can, over these next few months.

ALL CORRUPTION!!!

Hey! Ummm??

Nancy is the,,,,,,, Cleaning Lady!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

Fred Fielding,,, MOVE OVER!

Go Nancy GO!



JMO

All the best

Knute (Neo-LIB)

[trinity333]

I can't even stand to hear anyone in a position of power coming out against the Iraq war now, if it's for the very first time.

Where were these people when the rest of us were on the streets years ago, fighting against the start of the war? I was organizing in New Mexico -- where was Governor Richardson, who according to some commentators here, I should see as the Great White Hope? People were getting arrested, getting tear gassed in the streets -- where were all these righteous armchair activists then?

WE KNEW. We "wingnuts" and "nutbars" and "fringe" folks, who were on the streets, writing articles for our local papers, talking on the radio stations against the war -- WE KNEW THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

WE KNEW THEY WERE LYING. And this was no mystical knowledge. The evidence was available for everyone.

And now, all these years later, we have legions of spineless Democrats and pundits trying to wipe their hands clean of blood at the eleventh hour, slobbering all over us about how they "believed" the "evidence" that Bush and Co -- the most OBVIOUSLY CORRUPT AND ILLEGITIMATE REGIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY -- fed them.

Oh really.

Well why the hell did they believe it? WE DIDN'T. Those hundreds of thousands on the streets of the world didn't believe it -- the people Bush called a "focus group."

It doesn't wash. I don't believe THEM.

People in power will say whatever they need to say when it seems politically expedient. THEY LIE. It's up to us to try to understand what the political MOTIVES and PRESSURES are at the time so we can have some clue of what's coming down the pike.

Until we wake up to this we will sit like mindless Pavlovian dogs lapping up the lies and waiting for change to come after the next elections.

IT WON'T COME.

What we really need to be doing is asking ourselves two questions: Are we prepared to engage in a revolution to take back America, or are we prepared to get the hell out while we still can.

[Bernique]

Well said, Trinity! I was among the throngs who DIDN'T BELIEVE THEM in late 2002, and protested in rain, cold, fog, weekend after weekend.
Arianna, thank you for enlightening the Dems that they are THE MAJORITY in Congress and CAN stop the funding for the aggressive part of the occupation, the part we want to STOP. David Sirota and many others have been saying what you are now using your megaphone to tell us: the Democrats CAN stop the war funding by not VOTING on the funding. If they don't understand that now, then they are ... not Democrats. Steny Hoyer is the poster child for that kind of sorta Democrat (who's funding him? defense contractors?) - Enough with the tired "We don't have the 60 votes", Senator Reid, ENOUGH!!

[mtburke59]

Excellent column and points but my reaction is "Ha!, when Hell freezes over." And in this time of global warming, the chances of that are worse than ever.

Congress has an approval rating lower than Bush's for heaven's sake, so what do they have to lose by actually giving him a figurative poke in the eye with a sharp stick? Answer: nothing. In fact it may improve their image to be seen to have some courage.

Every time I hear some stupid Democrat (or perhaps he/she thinks the rest of us are stupid?) say "not enough votes, not enough votes!" I want to tell him/her to "wash out your mouth with soap." It is almost like they enjoy doing nothing but feed at the public trough in what is looking more and more like one of the most expensive welfare programs in the country's history: Congress.

Folks, stop whining and complaing to the rest of us like-minded readers. Make sure you vote in your next primary and boot the present occupants of all those expensive DC offices out and send a new crop into the general election. Since primary turnout is traditionally low, we can do it if we get even a little organized.

I don't know what can be done about Pelosi and impeachment - which absolutely needs to be started in order to save this nation - but at least in this next election we need to do our best to oust incompetent do-nothing so-called leadership from the House and Senate.

Quite frankly, the Dems have done such an execrable job that I actually expect them to lose their majorities in Congress and I also fully believe that none of the media-annointed Presidential frontrunner Dems will actually win in November 2008.

[Edison829]

I agree with mtburke. And I'd like to add that Arianna writing this column makes me laugh after the soft questioning she gave Nancy Pelosi. Arianna? How can you sound so outraged by the Dems and then NOT ask - no, demand - that Pelosi put impeachment back on the table and up front?

[trinity333]

mtburke59 -- Okay, please just explain your reasoning to me.

You are telling us to vote. You seem to think the answer is voting.

When I think of voting, I think of these problems:

*Thousands of riggable computerized voting machines with no parallel hand-count largely controlled by Republican interests

*Millions of Democratic voters purged from the vote roles

*A partisan and corrupt Supreme Court who can be guaranteed to step in and "manage" the outcome of a disputed election

*A corrupt media that will not report on extensive vote fraud

*A political process that allows only wealthy, powerful candidates access to power, and even then weeds out those with a conscious and funnels the biggest "players" right to the top slots

*A controlled media that will not give coverage to radical or "disruptive" candidates

And last but not least -- we GOT a whole "new" batch of people into Congress in 2006 -- AND NOTHING HAPPENED.

So please, explain why voting is the answer again?

[trinity333]

I meant to say those with a "conscience" -- but those who are "conscious" works as well!

[mtburke59]

Trinity333 -

You raise good points but I see no real idea of any action other than your earlier posts concerning revolution etc. Ain't-a-gonna happen. Too many couch potatoes and people who simply don't give a damn.

Short of outright revolution, which I do not think a possibility, the one place we can have an effect is the ballot box. NOT the general election but the primaries, where the hijinks may be less and where we could organize a group representing a much larger percentage of the turnout, which is always abysmal. The message we have to send is that we are willing to fire the incumbents BEFORE the general election rather than listen to them chunder on endlessly making promises we already know they won't keep. Will we do any better? We cannot do any worse, can we?

Will that work? Perhaps, but it has to be widespread. And will it mean the Republicans will win? Perhaps but I also think they will win anyway unless we can somehow convince like-minded people to show up in overwhelming numbers.

You said we got a "whole "new" bunch" in 2006. I beg to differ. We got just enough new faces to give a slim majority, all newbies with no seniority and no power to affect direction or anything else. We still had the same old entrenched "leadership" who have little or no incentive to change anything since the system in place is what keeps them feeding at the public table.

Since they will not listen to us, meaning the majority who want real change, they have to go, which means the ballot box unless you want to start a really nasty time.

Yes, there are many problems with voting, some of which you bring up. But what then, don't bother? What will that give us? The clear thing we cannot afford is to give up and hope for the revolution. We may not like the result.

[coach777b]

The country cannot wait again for these 'sliding deadline' dates. Bush asks for X then ups the ante and calls those opposed 'traitors! The leadership in Congress has the tools. Deny any funds that do not relate to returning troops back to their bases out of Iraq. Period. But they don't have the stomach to stand up to the neo-cons and will forever be regarded as the "Wimp Congress" which rolled over and played dead every time Bush/Cheyney barked.

[WaterRat]

Right on!
Congress should not even introduce the bill to refund the war. If Nancy doesn't put it on the floor, then it will not be heard.
We need action to stop the war - NOW!
Cheney has been beating his war drum to get a full fledged attack on Iran.
At the risk of being called "unpatriotic" and "traitor" for opposing these transgressions against the American people, and other nations -
Pull the plug!
The Cheney-Bush almalgamate is like a giant vacuum cleaner sucking the soul out of our beloved country.
We have had enough.
Congress put an end to it now!

[Bocababs]

The Dems are so afraid of that phrase NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS and that is simply what all this game playing with the money is about. I used to think it was about the votes, but get real, people. We are a little over a year away before Election Day.

[microgreg]

Pelosi ("Gee, how do you like my big smile and nice hair today?"): How can I put this "nicely"? You're not going to get reelected, if I have anything to do with it, based on your performance in this matter so far. You'd best GET IT already, and get to work ending this illegal and immoral preemptive invasion and botched occupation. There are so many essential reasons to do so, not the least of which is that we are ruining our place in the international community of the 21st century. Don't you people in Congress care about the future of this country????? Are you BLIND?????? Are you That Self-Interested????? Can you CONNECT DOTS?????

[Progress08]

Find someone in SanFran to run against her. Any good candidates to Lieberman her with (new word in lexicon of American English) Liebermanned = To lose the support of your own supporters by betraying their interests in favor of your own.

Sadly so many of our politicians could easily become Liebermanned if they don't get their asses in gear.

[openurmail]

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should both check out of their positions in the House and Senate.
Reid reminds me of a Vegas poker player who doesn't know which card to use.
As for Pelosi, whom I watched last week on Tavis Smiley was so sweet I couldn't stand it. Mrs Pelosi is just not strong enough as Speaker of the House. After her 100 day program when she took over the House, nothing has really happened.
They should either use some guts or turn over to someone who is strong and takes no crap.

[bassnman]

Ok, I have a question. How do we get out of this mess? I agree we should not be there anymore, but just defunding, tucking tail and pulling out solves nothing. We are stuck there until someone comes up with a plan to fix what has been broke. I think it's great that Sadam is no longer there, but he was a stabilizing force in the region. Giving an ending date to the war just helps the enemy. He will sit back and wait for us to leave and then come in and slaughter all of those that are against them just like Sadam did after Desert Storm.

Again, I don't want to be there anymore but, I haven't heard one good solution to fixing what has been broken so that we can get out. I have not heard one candidate that is running for office that has offered a solution either.

Good lick in 2008, looks like just more of the same ol' crap to me.

[RobertPaul]

I'm with you Bassnman.

I have found myself falling into the same trap that so many others have.

OK, you want to stop this war? Fine, YOU tell me how!

Bassnman said what a lot of us realize...you can't just say "Everybody out of the pool!"

There has to be some planning to the whole thing. Otherwise we will f**k up getting OUT just as badly as we got f**ked going in.

SO, all you big shot Democratic Candidates. What's your plan?

How and when do you propose we exit Iraq. Oh, and by the way...we need to do it without having our rear guard wiped out as we go.

Cutting off funding is just a stunt. What we need is a plan.

[TankerRat]

Try Gov. Bill Richardson bassnman. He's the ONLY candidate with a plan.
Our valiant boys and girls have done all we've asked and a lot more. I defy ANYBODY to call them losers.
As for an end date. WHO TO HELL CARES. It's THEIR country. Let them hash it out.
Anybody with a lick of sense KNOWS they don't want Western style democracy. Anybody with another lick of sense knows that Iraq will never be the "whole" entity it was. I submit that left to their own devices the middle east will indeed stabilize as to the furthest extent possible for that region of the world. Let it be!!! WHY are we continuing to spill our precious blood?

[AttentionEarthlings]

Rice stated that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of Iraq ... "has been harder than we thought because we didn't realize how broken the country was under Saddam Hussein."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102607A.shtml

According to Rice - Iraq was "broken" before we went in - why do we have to now fix it?

[Bernique]

Bassnman-- tell me, who is "the enemy"?

[Progress08]

I'll say this once and then start crying. THERE IS NO WAY TO FIX IRAQ. IT IS OVER. WE FUCKED IT UP AND COULDN'T POSSIBLY HOPE TO REPAIR IT. I AM BEREFT WITH SADNESS FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN WE HAVE LOST AND WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE. I AM EQUALLY BEREFT FOR ALL OF THE INNOCENT IRAQIS WHO HAVE DIED AND WILL SOON DIE AND CONTINUE DYING BECAUSE OF OUR IGNORANCE IN PLANNING THIS WAR. IF WE LEFT TOMORROW OR TEN YEARS FROM TOMORROW IT WILL NOT MATTER EXCEPT IN THE NUMBER OF OUR DEAD MEN AND WOMEN AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE WILL HAVE THROWN AWAY.

[wilwon]

In view of the results of various polls taken prior to the 2006 elections, and since, the political positions adopted by N Pelosi and H Reid have been incomprehensible. It seems that each of these two so- called Democratic 'leaders' has voluntarily acted in an incompetent and corrupt manner. Each should abdicate her/his titular position and allow another Congress member to assume the leadership responsibilities and face up to the Republican traitors who have ruined this country's resources, economy and reputation.

[Lemeritus]

I nominate Pete Stark for Speaker!

[TankerRat]

I move to nominate Daffy Duck. Do I hear a second? Motion has been made and seconded to nominate Daffy Duck as Speaker of the House.

All those in favor signify by saying "Aye."
Those opposed?

The "Ayes" have it and the motion is so adopted.
Any further questions?

[demoinKS]

Trinity 333: You sound as desperate as the rest of us should be. Maybe we should start with supporting, vigorously & noisily, Gov. Richardson. He is the ONLY candidate who has said our troops must come--ALL of them. Then, go to work to find genuine leaders in Congress, who are not afraid of their own voices. Here's the standard for leadership formulated by Cornel West--a valid one, I think:"You cannot lead unless you love; you cannot save unless you serve." How long since a public figure has talked of love or service to America?????

[ExRepublican]

"Gov. Richardson. He is the ONLY candidate who has said our troops must come--ALL of them. "

Serious question. Do you honest to god believe him when he spouts this junk?

[laocoon]

All the pages here are the same page. what is wrong with this commentary format.

[StephenCassidy]

Don't get mad about our Congress' inability to show leadership on Iraq, get even. How do we do that? We do it by how we vote. In the upcoming primaries let's support candidates that are calling for an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq. Biden, Clinton, Obama and Edwards all condition their calls to leave Iraq based upon the circumstances that will exist in 2009 and refuse to guarantee our troops will be out by 2013.

Richardson, whom I'm supporting, is clear an unequivocal: ALL troops out within a year, no residual forces, no troops in the green zone, not special forces to remain. Read his plan at http://www.getourtroopsout.com/

[TankerRat]

I stand with you Stephen. I'm supporting Gov. Richardson as well. Have been for some time.