Congressional Dem Leaders Surrender to Bush/Petraeus Without a Shot. Will Obama or Hillary Rally the Democratic Troops to Fight Back ?

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.

Comments

[MrSlick]

Dr. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the last best hope to get this nation on the right track again.

[DeWayne]

[nuQlerOstrich]
I agree with you 100% concerning Kucinich being 100% accurate regarding the pre-emptive murder and mayhem for oil-money, and many other foreign policy of Corp-Gov screw-up's (that the great majority of DEM and GOP endorse daily).
I also agree that the five major media are making sure this man stays far in the background.
Unfortunately I do not believe the general populous of America are stupid enough to (not) know what is going on, we either have fixed-elections in America, or the ordinary citizen of this nation is a living parasite.

[sptatt]

We have the best government money can buy, unfortunately the people that pay the piper want this to go on, who do think is getting most of that 3 billion a month. The fat dumb and happy American pubic really don't give a rat's ass, just lip service in the polls. The republic is toast, once they kick it off in Iran you can forget about elections, they'll even use the old Roosevelt slogan "don't change horse in the middle of the stream".

[nuQlerOstrich]

Oh, in case you didn't know which candidates to which I was referring;

Dennis Kucinich

Ron Paul

Dennis Kucinich

Ron Paul

None of the other candidates have shown anything to me that would lead me to believe they give a damn about the Constitution.

[rich1107]

Let's be clear, Ron Paul is a trickle down economist...that's all I need to know to toss him on the pile with Reagan.

[genmalia]

Other than Obama having taught Constitutional Law? He does know the constitution, it's history and interpretation, as well as application (see Audacity of Hope for several references), and he publically spoke against the Iraq invasion before Congress ever voted on it.

Let's at least get some of your generalization clear here.

[nuQlerOstrich]

What an absurd question. I don't even have to read the article to respond.

There are only two candidates, one in each party [thank goodness] who give the Constitution of the United States more than a passing glance when thinking about our country.

Let's just say it's not any of the "front-runners" and thst makes as much of a statement about the media as it does about the average American's ability to think for him (or her)self.

And incidentally, both candidates made the correct decision and showed proper judgement when the most important vote of their careers came up. The Iraq War authorization.

It's lamentable when the men who were proven to be of sound judgement when their peers lacked, are now being relegated to "fringe" candidate status.

Screwed up, or as we used to say, SNAFU.

[Rescisco]

"Gen. Petraeus hasn't even given his much touted (White House written) report and already Congressional Democrats are in full retreat mode."

The script for the "Petraeus report" was written months ago. The current "surge" of media coverage as the deadline approaches is being perfectly managed by the administration and its mighty righty media tag team. The mainstrean media is being played like a violin and, predictably, the Democrats are soiling their shorts with the fear of being called runners and quitters etc. In the meantime, a president who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel "smells it" and "no longer fears the power of Congress..." Even if all of this was as predictable as a "surprise" presidential visit to Iraq in early September, it is still too painful to watch unfold.

[DeWayne]

Every effort by both DEM and GOP constituents for a better America, requires voting (out) every DEM/GOP representative from the upper echelon of these Empire Enablers.
There can be no doubt whatsoever today that these Pork/PAC/Perk/Payola representatives of both DEM and GOP have sold out America, literally.

[DeWayne]

Soon our Shadow-Gov fronted by Bush will have their report from Gen. Petraeus saying "everything is wonderful in Iraq, getting better every day, but that we (must) wait until adequate Military and Police can handle taking over control in Iraq."

What proves this as pure fabrication, in a nation that going on 5-years now has been kept in deliberate devestation and destabelization, is that all during this time our Shadow-Gov has been training "Free Iraqi" forces since 1999 in a former Russian base called Camp Peace near Kapsovar Hungry. This does not include the Bagdad Terminator (old NY Police Commissioner) contracted to also train Police in Iraq, the first batch supposedly being mostly old Saddam secret police.

What has apparently been the problem with this training base and program, is that instead many well trained and armed Militia's and Police group's (called pop-up's) have lost handcuff's found on Iraq civilians unfortunately found tortured to death alongside roads or floating in rivers.

The old adage about fooling some of the people sometimes, has changed to, Americans will believe anything.

[fact finder]

NO They won't.

[freespeach]

For those of you who don't want to be battered by your long time lover anymore.....

http://www.gp.org/

Make a move, piss on the DLC who now control the Democratic party.

[Dantheman99]

I've did that in 1996 and am happy I did.

---------

This is a real test of leadership for the nominees. In a parliamentary system, the leaders are expected to lead the party. Which Presidential candidate will do the best job leading the Congressional Democrats to using their power to defund the war? Or will they use their position to triangulate against the anti-war majority?

I have my guesses of what will happen, and it will be indicative of what we will see from their Presidency. Will they be a leader or a triangulator? Bets anyone on what Hillary will prove herself to be, or any of the other candidates?

[Noelle]

We did have a Senator showing leadership in the Senate and it was Jim Webb. He was demanding that the president receive nothing without the condition that any military action against Iran would have to be voted on and approved by the congress first. He was shot down by his OWN party and it was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid that quickly took that measure off the table and sent him on his way. Carl Levin started hearings on the Solicitor Generals report that Doug Feith was making up intelligence at the Pentagon and NONE OF THE DEMOCRATS on his committee including Hillary Clinton bothered to show up (with the exception of (Jim Webb). Warrentless wiretapping comes up for a vote and Senators like Diane Feinstein vote for it. Why? Maybe because her frickin husband has been making millions off the war.

There is no leading these people. Many of them benefit as much from this war as the republicans and they don't even try to hide it anymore.

As for John Edwards, this is a man who not only co-sponsored the Iraq war resolution with Joe Lieberman without even reading the intelligence reports but helped sell it to both the American people and his fellow democrats all while missing more votes during his term than any other Senator. Thats real leadership.

There were 23 Senators and some outside the beltway like Barack Obama, Al Gore and Howard Dean who spoke out against all this nonsense when the country wanted revenge for 9/11 and it wasn't a popular thing to do. Thats leadership.

I do like John Edwards and happen to think Elizabeth Edwards would make a fabulous first lady, however, how can we be sure he has really changed?

[DemandTruth]

I don't think you're being completely fair to John Edwards. NONE of them read the whole intelligence report before the vote. They read the summary and had been snookered like we (most of us anyway) all were by the Administration and the Corporate Mass Media into thinking that because the President said it (and Condi and Powell and Cheney, etc) it was true.

It was still early on in this failed experiment of a Neo-con administration and most people still believed our leaders would conduct themselves with integrity and conscience and tell the truth to We The People like they were supposed to do. Most people just hadn't realized yet that they are all compulsive liars and you can bank on the exact opposite of what they say being the real "reality".

NOBODY wanted the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, did they?

I don't excuse Edwards for being led right along w/ everyone else, but at least he acknowledges that mistake & has apologized and has been making up for it.

Also, he's the only one who speaks for me, the working middle-class/poor.

Good enough for my vote, thanks very much.

[Noelle]

Sorry , I can't argue with someone who actually believed Saddam not only had nuclear weapons but that he was about to drop them on the United States?

How could anyone blindly follow Bush/Cheney, two Big Oil/Halliburton guys into the middle east without doing everything in their power to verify the claims being made? Big red flags should have been going up all over the place. In fact they probably were, they were just ignored.

My first thought after 9/11, this will be spun to get us into Iraq. My thought was a year. I was wrong, it was 1 and a half years.

[Dap]

Dear Miles,

We (you and I) are in the same stream of consciousness on this one, well... in many of your essays/post actually. We need leadership, so far John Edwards stands out greatest. Agape.

[rich1107]

The ACLU had it correct in their ads; these people are sheep. Let's replace them with people that will do whatever it takes to de-rail the neocon agenda.

[bringbackimus]

Don't hold your breath waiting for H. Clinton to take the lead.

[milo9]

What leadership has Hillary or Obama provided on any of the critical issues? Especially the war, media conglomeration, warrantless surveillance, and the shredding of the Constitution. It's dumbfounding as to how they can view themselves as Presidential timber.

[Guitarsandmore]

God bless, John Edwards. He is the one who is paying attention and the one who cares.