The Front Page New York TimesHeadline: "Democrats Newly Willing to Compromise on Iraq". (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/washington/06cong.html?hp) The headline of The Polico.Com: "Democrats Retreat on War End". (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/7679.html) Even more alarming, the column by, of all people, Patrick Buchanan: "Collapse of Congress Anti-War Coalition Opens The Door For Bush To Attack Iran". (http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_6796114)
Gen. Petraeus hasn't even given his much touted (White House written) report and already Congressional Democrats are in full retreat mode. As Buchanan put it , "George W. smells it. He no longer fears the power of Congress, and his rhetoric suggests he is contemptuous of it. He is brimming with self-assurance that he can break any Democratic attempt to impose deadlines for troop withdrawal and force Congress to cough up all the funds he demands...What is to prevent Bush from attacking Iran and widening the war, at a time and place of his choosing, and sooner than we think? Nothing and no one."
This in the face of the GAO report to Congress that only 3 of 15 benchmarks for political progress in Iraq have been met.
As The Politico.Com reports, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are calculating that it is futile to continue their months-long campaign to force any immediate end to the war...The change is both rhetorical and substantive. Reid and others are increasingly talking of 'bipartisan compromise,' while top Democrats are reworking legislation erasing a date certain for ending the military operation."
But the effort to force a timeline for troop redeployment is far from futile. Congress has the Constitutional power of the purse strings. Early in the summer Democrats passed a funding bill with a timeline for troop redeployment which Pres. Bush vetoed. They then voted to continue funding the war without conditions other than a future report on the progress of the war. (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton snuck in at the end of the roll call to cast votes against continued funding, but offered no leadership.)
Bush is asking for nearly $150 billion more in supplemental funding for the war. The strategy that is not futile is for Congress to keep sending Bush a funding bill that requires a timeline for troop redeployment. If Bush vetoes it, they can send the same bill back to him again. If he vetoes it again, they can send it back once more. If he keeps vetoing the bill, then it is Bush who is not "supporting the troops." And if Republican Senators filibuster the bill, then they're the ones "not supporting the troops".
The Democrats fear that Bush will accuse them of not "supporting the troops". But the Congressional Democrats have never tried to challenge this false frame. Spending $3 billion a week while troops die in a futile attempt to step into the middle of a civil war in Iraq is not "supporting the troops". Supporting the troops is to redeploy them in an orderly manner to get them out of harm's way in an Iraqi civil war. Military victory in Iraq is impossible and the Iraqis show little interest in a political settlement.
In non-election years, political parties often lack a national spokesman who can garner the same kind of media attention as the President. But even without a nominee, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have that ability, particularly since as members of the Senate, they can actually do something besides make speeches--They can take the moral leadership away from Harry Reid, Carl Levin and Jack Reed, who now want to find a toothless compromise with the Republicans, and rally their fellow Senators against voting for any further funding for the war that does not have a redeployment timeline.
John Edwards has already shown Presidential-caliber leadership and issued a strong and articulate statement: "In 2006, the American people elected a Democratic Congress to change course and end this war. It's the whole reason the American people voted for change. Yet, 10 months after the election, we still have the status quo and Congress has failed to do the people's will. That might be they way they do it inside the Beltway, but it's not the American way. It's time to stand up for the American people and against President Bush's failed, stubborn policy. Without a firm deadline, a small withdrawal of only some of the surge troops won't cut it--that's not a solution, it's an excuse. Congress must not send President Bush any funding fill without a timeline to end this war. No timeline, no funding. No excuses." (emphasis added). (http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/6/13517/60101)
Bravo for John Edwards (and for Chris Dodd, too, who also came out against any funding without a withdrawal deadline). But unfortunately, John Edwards is no longer in the Senate and can't do anything concrete at this time. Hillary and Obama can, but so far, they have been silent. They can lead a new charge by the Democratic troops...or they can continue to slink off and make quiet roll call votes in the dark of night. They can also show real leadership by working together with each other and other anti-war Senators like Chris Dodd and John Kerry for the good of the country, instead of trying to make the other look bad.
This is a test of Presidential leadership. If Hillary and/or Obama fail it, they have no right to be the Democratic nominee for President. Only John Edwards, among the front runners, has that right at the moment. As far as funding the war without a timeline for withdrawal, the Democrats slogan must be, in the words of Bruce Springsteen, "No Retreat, No Surrender" to George Bush.