One Last Test For The Democrats

The Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations is currently drafting legislation to fund the war in Iraq for the duration of the year. The legislation calls for troops to be withdrawn by years end -- binding or non-binding, I don't know. One thing is for sure -- President Bush will send it right back with his veto due to the language of the bill.

This will be the last major test for the Democratic majority of the 110th Congress. When the bill hits the floor each member will have a final opportunity to vote their conscience and show their constituency where they stand on the war in Iraq.

Should Congress succumb to veto threats by the President or a filibuster in the Senate we can officially update our dictionaries and look up the 110th Congress under "do-nothings."

In the last war funding showdown Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid gave President Bush a strong ultimatum -- except our version of the war funding bill or you won't get your money. Sadly, President Bush stood his ground while the Democrats in Congress folded like cheap suits.

Half of Senate Democrats and 79 House Democrats voted with Republicans to authorize unconditional funding for the war.

All while using the troops for cover to justify their votes -- "Oh , I just can't cut off funding for the troops in harms way." Come on, as if the lunch truck is going to drive off and the troops are going to be left without drinking water and throwing rocks at the enemy. Do they really think we are that stupid?

Congress does not have to pull the plug on funding. Frankly, that is not a reality under the current circumstances. What they can do is attach a binding timetable for troop withdrawal to the funding bill and stick to their guns. When the President vetoes the bill than it will be the President who cut the funding for our troops, not Congress. It makes perfect sense to me.

The Republican "minority" has consistently prevailed in all past war funding showdowns. Can the Democratic "majority" win at least once?

There is absolutely no excuse for this President to leave us all with the mess he and his administration created in Iraq. He has an obligation to put his petulance aside and end this occupation on his watch.

* There were no weapons of mass destruction to disarm
* Saddam Hussein is dead
* The Iraqi people have had 3 Democratic elections
* We built, armed, trained, and financed a new Iraqi army and police force
* We completed a full year of the surge
* We are approaching our fifth year of war

The United States military has completed the many revolving/rotating missions they were tasked with by the Bush administration. It is time for the Iraqis to receive their country back and for them to make their own decisions regarding Iraq's future.

As an anti-Iraq war activist it has been extremely difficult for me to play my position. Imagine me in the street telling people they need to vote for Democrats to end the war while a substantial number of Democrats are voting for it -- blank checks no less. What makes it worse is that the Democrats vote to continue the war and simultaneously complain about doing it. There is no way to defend this and I can't continue to carry on the struggle on behalf of the Democratic party -- but the struggle will surely continue.

In all fairness, it is imperative to recognize members of Congress who have shown tremendous courage from the very start of this war. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Barbara Lee, and the entire Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus. These are the people who have kept me in the Democratic Party.

Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Reid should immediately begin to rally the entire party to unite just this once and demand that President Bush end the occupation of Iraq.

I know it is naive to believe that President Bush will cave in and except the demands of Congress -- a coequal branch of government. However it is not a tall order for the Democrats to show the same kind of resolve.

Only through unity and strength can the Democratic party regain credibility.

Comments

[Rescisco]

Politicians behaving as politicians will never stop a war or stand for peace. That is too complicated and requires too much dedication when public opinion is easily manipulated and truth so easily hidden (the surge is working now, its all the rage you know etc.). Relentless resistance to this tragic war and the lies upon which it continues to be based is a task too important to be left to elected officials. We have to stand up and speak truth to power every day and be willing to persist through the inevitable advancing war machine as it drones on and on and on. At the least, history will record that someone said no! That is something.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

Rescisco,

I love your commentary , especially this part:

"Relentless resistance to this tragic war and the lies upon which it continues to be based is a task too important to be left to elected officials. We have to stand up and speak truth to power every day and be willing to persist through the inevitable advancing war machine as it drones on and on and on. At the least, history will record that someone said no! That is something."

Thank you for contributing this.
V/R
John

[SamThornton]

Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone makes what strikes me as a valid argument, that the leadership in the Democratic Party effectively hijacked the anti-war sentiment in the country to pursue their own political objectives, foremost of which includes avoiding anything which they think makes them appear weak on national security. (http://tinyurl.com/ypsqrx)

It wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to predict that this wasn't going to be popular with the people who voted them into power. Nevertheless, they persist.

Someone who was really upset with this strategy might term Pelosi, Hoyer, and Read, for example, double-crossing snakes. I take the more gentle avenue of thinking of them merely as benighted dumbasses.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

Sam Thorton,

Please , Please , check out these links:

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20071119_The_anti-war_phonies.html

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/anti-war-veteran-criticizes-groups-opposed-to-iraq-war-2007-11-28.html

V/R
John

[Nutcase]

Let's assume that they vote their heart. We can then take that to determine our vote on whether or not they remain in Congress.

cognito ergo populistae

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

Nutcase,

Yes, indeed.
V/R
John

[research]

You are such an optimist John, I hope to God you are right!

The DLC,ORG half of the dems actually believe in war as an instrument of policy. Rahm actually picked "new Dems" in 2006 who would support the war, and who are against impeachment.

http://www.ppionline.org/index.cfm

This is also one thing about Obama that I don't like. Now that we are "stuck" in an ongoing occupation and war crime, somehow Obama is unwilling to defund the war on the false premise about supporting the troops. As if Bush would leave unfunded troops in Iraq, and get away with it to 2 second.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

research,
An optimist is something I have never been accused of -- so thank you for being the first to say so. I would take Obama over McCain without blinking. I totally agree with your comments on Rahm and how the DCCC operated in 06' . Good to hear from you again. V/R John

[JakeEasy]

It is not that the president should accept the wishes of congress. What we need is a congress with better wishes. It really doesn't matter whether Hillary or Barack is the president. If we have the same congress, we will still have the war and all the other ills with which we now suffer.

I wish that the passion and furor expended here on HuffPo over the Democratic nomination were directed toward electing at least two dozen true progressives to congress. Four dozen are really needed to overcome the bought and paid for members who now take your votes and every lobbyist's money. We need to campaign for and support anyone running against a republican and about half the Democrats.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

JakeEasy,

You absolutely made my morning, with this comment:

"I wish that the passion and furor expended here on HuffPo over the Democratic nomination were directed toward electing at least two dozen true progressives to congress. Four dozen are really needed to overcome the bought and paid for members who now take your votes and every lobbyist's money. We need to campaign for and support anyone running against a republican and about half the Democrats."

You hit the nail on the head my friend.
V/R
John

[desmirl]

John,
The Democrats will not stand up against the Bush Administration unless we, the public, call them and pledge one thing--we won't vote for them if they continue to support Bush's madness. What would be worse, a Republican majority in congress and hopefully a Democrat president, or a Democrat majority in congress which will NOT carry out the will of the majority of the voters. We have spoken loud and clear to our representatives.... STOP THE WAR. They aren't listening, and when the Democrats call me and wonder aloud why I've stopped contributing I give them an earful, anyway.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

desmirl,

You are on to something here. I wrote this with the same feelings of frustration that you are expressing. I too feel ignored and shunned by my elected representatives. And while I think 08' is a perfect year to send a message to Congress, one thing is for sure, we need Obama in the White House, or Hillary (said reluctantly) as opposed to John McCain who is scaring me more than Bush does. When he threatens that "there will be other wars" I get chills. Thanks for the reply. It is good to hear from you again. I love you feedback.
V/R
John

[whimsicalpig]

John, While your argument is logical, there is no chance we will ever leave Iraq while we are addicted to fossil fuels to perpetuate our current lifestyles.

It s not really about elections, wmds, or fighting terrorists over there.....

It's what our military has been about since the end of WWII, the safe passage of oil and other industrial necessitites.

We are told it's about "National security" as if to imply that they are protecting us from the evil whatevers who want to steal our freedom.

In reality, it's about protecting the interests of our corporations where ever that interest may take them.

No, neither the democrats nor the republicans have a vested interest in ending this "war" as long as their campaigns are funded by special interests from K-street.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

whimsicalpig,

Your last two sentences are perfect :

"In reality, it's about protecting the interests of our corporations where ever that interest may take them."

"No, neither the democrats nor the republicans have a vested interest in ending this "war" as long as their campaigns are funded by special interests from K-street."

I could not have said it better myself.

V/R
John

[Nutcase]

The problem is that both Obama and Clinton are corporate-owned. Some naive dreamers want to believe otherwise but the facts are available.

cognito ergo populistae

[itmaybetoolate]

Thanks for another great column. If only the dems would stand up to this maniac! I don't know if I can call myself a democrat anymore. In fact, I would vote for a Green Party candidate if I have the choice (which I won't). The link to the clip was great - condi added several lies to her 56 previous "false statements" I believe. BTW, I didn't know there was an "Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus!" That actually gives me a bit of hope.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

itmaybetoolate,

Yes indeed, the Out of Iraq Caucus has been around since June 2005. Here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Iraq_Caucus

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Out_of_Iraq_Congressional_Caucus

I am very pleased you liked the blog I wrote and I appreciate your feedback.
V/R
John

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyKOkGjodhY

[altohone]

I think if you had truth serum in Reid and Pelosi's veins, you would discover they have chosen not to risk alienating one single colleague or voter by taking a stand as you suggest... in the hope of gaining their support on other issues.

Too many of their fellow Dems like Feinstein drew a line in the sand based on their ideological sameness with the neocons. This cadre of traitors remains entrenched and unflinching in their support for the Bush agenda, and will not support a new approach (they weren't "tricked" by Bush like Hillary (yeah right!)... they continue to believe in the Iraq war).

With gorillas in their midst, no attempt at a unified Democratic bill including a timetable can be passed.

This isn't about folding like cheap suits or resolve, it's about an enemy within the Democratic party willing to vote against the wishes of Demcoratic voters... and considering the actions of Reid and Pelosi, I'm not sure they aren't part of the problem.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

altohone,

This part summed it up perfectly:

"it's about an enemy within the Democratic party willing to vote against the wishes of Demcoratic voters."

I think that says it all.
V/R
John

[deminmo]

One candidate didn't vote for or against the
Senate FISA/telecom immunity. When Senators
don't vote, or read bills put before them, cave
into threats from the administration, and yet
the President plans to ask for another round of
funding for the war later this year. All the
while saying the troops may not come home.
Is Congress waiting for a new President, new
members? A cattle prod? I don't get it.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

deminmo,
This is an unforgivable political strategy. The way I read is that Congress will let the Bush administration continue to screw this country up so badly so they can campaign off of it again in 08' like they did in 06' ,, they only question is "will we be fooled again?"
Good to hear from you again. I love your insight.
V/R
John

[flatus]

A good start would be to get Pelosi and Reid back amongst the rank and file. Like Bush, they embarrass me.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

flatus,
I think someone else is pulling the strings. I'm not sure if they are actually in charge or just a face for the leadership.
V/R
John

[leogorcey]

The big jolt for the Dems came in Nov '06 when they rode to glory on the anti-war surfboard. Because it is WAR and WAR can really screw up an electorate they have been ever so tentative to be tainted as the "cut and run crowd". They all remember what it was like to be branded as "soft on Communism".

Their strategy was let's tie funding to a timetable. They failed to get a veto-proof vote so Bush prevailed and delayed any more discussion until the Petraeus report on the surge. Petraeus says the surge is working and there is no real discussion on what victory will mean or even what the surge is working means and the MSM basically says "yeah, the surge is working". Harry and Nancy say they are too squeezed for time to really do anything about the war.

Meanwhile, while the Dems position themselves for a new presidential/congressional election another 1,120 American soldiers pointlessly die for Bush's mistake and we send another $145 billion down the Blackwater, Halliburton rathole.

My friends this is not leadership it is cowardice. While the Pubs swing for the fences on every pitch the Dems have been bunting and even asking permission to bunt. While the Pubs go for the long bomb on every play the Dems insist on punting, even on first and ten. They are like all the losing coaches and managers who say "they made the plays and we didn't".

With HillBill in charge this strategy will just be more of the same.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

leogorcey,

This is exactly what I keep hearing from most people I talk to. In 08' the Democrats will have an extremely difficult time running on the war issue.
V/R
John

[NorCalNative]

John, you couldn't be more on point. If we have lost congress as a co-equal branch of government we're screwed. And, under this administration, as long as there is a terrorist anywhere we'll be at war. And, this gang's ideas of expanded executive power has been like a main-line injection to the Military Industrial Complex.

America the idea, or America as a great country is impossible if congress has no role. I owe nothing to America the Monarchy!

[Nutcase]

There is a common misconception about the Federal Government. There is not supposed to be co-equal branches. This comes from an unwarranted extension of the mechanism of checks and balances.

Congress makes the laws. The Executive Branch executes the laws. The President is supposed to do what the Congress tells it to do and what the Congress tells it that it can do.

The only power that the President holds vis-a-vis the Congress is the veto, a power that can be overridden. The Congress controls the budget, approval of appointments, impeachment, etc.

The House is supposed to originate all money bills, which most in effect are. If the bill does not get written and passed by the House, no other branch can begin the process or bring such into being.

The Congress was meant to be the most powerful branch. Even the House and Senate are not equal. Since the Senate was chosen my state legislators, the House was deemed to be the closest to the people and was therefore to dominate. The Founders felt that money talked and therefore gave the House primacy.

I particularly get upset when I hear Congressmen blather about the 'co-equal' branches. They certainly should know better.

Pelosi and Reid (and all other Congressmen) should exercise the powers of their offices for the good of the people or stand accused of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance.

cognito ergo populistae

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

NorCalNative,

You and I are on the same playing field. I appreciate your feedback because I feel it echoes my argument made in this piece. We the people seem nonexistent to our elected leaders nowadays. The Democrats just assume they have our votes because of the "lesser of two evils" dilemma. Please keep sending your thoughts my way. Thank you.
V/R
John

[Bob Egan]

Sorry! The Democratic party has lost the last vestige of my respect! I will not support or vote for ANY incumbent!

The ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES no longer need or deserve any support! They are owned by the companies that bought them!

Not even one of these people 'honored' their oath of office, thereby showing anyone, that is willing to pay even the slightest bit of attention, that they, like the rest of this administration, are completely devoid of "Honor".

The lame excuses and lies that they try to answer our complaints with are insulting to say the least!

I urge everyone to withdraw support for every incumbent!

Their voting records are a testament to the traitors they are!

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

See John Bruhns's Profile

Bob Egan,

I agree that incumbents should be judged by their voting records. Lead by example, and actions will always speak louder than words. There are many members of Congress who have voted consistently against this war. I don't wan their good names to be tarnished. This upcoming funding battle will likely be the final war funding bill. Hence, my title of "One Last Test For The Democrats." It is because of your frustration, and the millions of others who share it that I wrote this piece.
V/R
John