Abdication: Democrats Give Up Their Legislative Birthright in Deal on Funding the War

"What are we supposed to tell them and their families? To wait another year until a new administration and a new Congress starts listening to the American people and brings this tragedy to a close?" -- Sen. Russ Feingold

The newspaper headlines of December 19 tell the story: "Senate Adds $70 Billion for Wars in Spending Bill" (New York Times); and "Iraq Funds Approved In Senate Budget Bill" (Washington Post).

As reported by The Times:

By an overwhelming 70-to-25 vote (on a Republican motion), senators moved to provide the money sought by President Bush after the defeat of two Democratic-led efforts to tie the money to troop withdrawals. Crowed the Senate Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky: "We have come to a very successful conclusion of this year's Congress." On that vote, 48 Republicans were joined by 21 Democrats and one independent in supporting Iraq funds, with 23 Democrats, one independent and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) opposed.

The Post's summation had a more accurate bite to it:

The Senate last night approved an omnibus spending bill to fund the federal government for the rest of fiscal year 2008, "shortly after bowing to President Bush's demand for $70 billion in unrestricted funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." ("When is enough enough?" plaintively asked Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) during the debate.) The Republican amendment took $31 billion for Afghanistan operations -- the only war-related funding in the House bill approved Monday -- and added almost $40 billion for Iraq.

The Los Angeles Times account damnedly read:

"Congressional Democrats' yearlong campaign to bring the war in Iraq to an end concluded with a whimper Tuesday... As they have all year, Senate Republicans prevented the move to set dates by which the president would have to begin and complete bringing American forces home. And Democratic leaders gave in to demands from the Bush administration for more money for the war without any congressionally imposed restrictions....The once-heated war debate closed with little suspense and no drama. Senators spent as much time Tuesday delivering tributes to retiring Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott as they did debating the war." (sic)

Thus, the Democrats wrapped up their first year in power on both sides of the Capitol since 1994. "With Iraq war funding dominating debate and overshadowing other achievements, President Bush could claim another victory over rivals who took power on an antiwar platform," read the account of the company town's newspaper. The war debate ended up as part of a Democratic-choreographed exercise intended to meet the President's demand for more war financing while sparing anti-war Democrats from having to back the money to secure approval of the budget bill. However, the one binding withdrawal plan -- requiring that most troops be redeployed in nine months -- was defeated, 71 to 24.

One Year in Power and the Democratic Leadership Trapped in a Cul-de-Sac

But that is not the whole story. Eager to vacate the Capitol a week before Christmas, the Democratic leadership in Congress struck a deal between the two houses that fatefully insured the next Administration -- in 2009 -- will be burdened with withdrawing American troops from Iraq. Incredibly, the leverage afforded by power over the "purse strings" -- that could have been more effectively exercised six months ago -- was surrendered and President Bush left free to prolong the occupation with fresh funding.

So much for the argument that impeachment proceedings in the House had to be put aside in 2007 so that Congress could focus on getting this country out of Iraq.

Even this late in the year, there was a final, if difficult, option. The Democrats in the Senate, more than nominally in control, could have put on the legislative brakes, and stalled the agenda. And, if push came to shove, they could have followed the example of Sen. Chris Dodd on FISA, and executed -- not just threatened -- their own filibuster against the McConnell amendment providing more "interim" funding for the war in Iraq.

Intense Commitment Versus a Mess of Porridge

Were the anti-war Democrats intensely committed enough to the point of using obstructionist tactics of their own to force something like a withdrawal deadline from Iraq on the White House? It would have taken a substantial plurality of Democratic Senators to stage a real "stop work order" gambit over the holidays. What a limp statement from the often pugilistic Democratic majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada: "You usually recognize that you have something that's O.K. when both negotiators are unhappy with what they've gotten."

But they were willing to trade additional money for the war -- with not even the suggestion of a
withdrawal date for American troops -- in return for money for thousands of "earmarked" domestic projects in states and congressional districts already approved by the House.

The Bigger Bluff

Of course, without such war funds free of withdrawal language, the President had said he would veto the entire omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2008, if it reached his desk before Christmas. Then, why not let him bear the responsibility for slowing down the government; and leave Republican senators to take the rap for yet one more filibuster against any amendment tying war funds to the idea of withdrawal? The money would have been found, via Pentagon reprogramming, to fund the troops until February. Moreover, did the experienced Democratic leadership really believe the old bugaboo that -- if they had approved a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government functioning temporarily -- the country faced the prospect of shuttered military facilities and furloughs for military employees as the Pentagon moved funds from other accounts to finance the war?

There can be no excuse for the Democratic leadership to have allowed itself to be trapped in such a cul-de-sac, while engaging in parliamentary legerdemain under which the House bill included no money for the Iraqi war -- but did include funds for the war in Afghanistan -- and left it to the Senate to vote the money for Iraq! What does it do for public confidence when the Democrats in House and Senate -- before leaving for the two-week Thanksgiving recess -- pledged not to give Bush any Iraq funding without withdrawal timelines, even though they knew he would threaten to veto the appropriations measures needed to keep the federal government running?

The Culture of Congress and the Long-Term Consequence

The sad truth is that Senators and Representatives are so invested in the routine of Congress' holiday breaks out of Washington -- especially in December -- that they set themselves up for being "had" by the permanently-in-session White House. Any president and his advisers sense this hole in the legislative wall, and know that, if the big tests of will can be put off until within weeks of Christmas, they can control the budgetary showdowns from the bully pulpit.

Of surpassing strategic political importance, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be dragooned into funding the continued occupation of Iraq. The burden will then fall to a Democratic president to extricate the country from a war uniquely cooked up by the Bush White House.

Comments

[Rudym]

Might as well face it fellow bloggers. Blogging is a waste of time, same as voting for a Democrat.

[Dantheman99]

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

The Democratic Leadership has been the height of cowardly. They have not stood up Bush and the neocons or fought in any significant way since retaking the majority.

They have done nothing, NOTHING, to receive any loyalty of faith from the American people. Not only did not they not even try to end or defund the war, they didn't hold Bush to account for lying the nation into war in the first place.

They found time on the legislative calendar to condemn moveon.org for telling the truth, but not to censure Bush for lying to the country in the first place.

There is no reason to assume if they had more power that they would use it when they don't even use their current scheduing power or 41 votes of their own to filibuster pro-Bush legislation.

Vote for candidates and a party that's not afraid to stand up to conservatives, will fight to end the war and bring universal health care.

Vote Green Party for Congress in 2008!

You owe the Democrats nothing.

[Lemeritus]

Here's my PSA for the day:

Fellow liberals, do you know where your senators are?

Joining the Republicans on the spending bill were:
Akaka, Hawaii
Baucus, Montana
Bayh, Indiana
Carper, Deleware
Casey, Pennsylvania
Conrad, North Dakota
Dorgan, North Dakota
Inouye, Hawaii
Johnson, South Dakota
Landrieu, Louisiana
Levin, Michigan
Lincoln, Arkansas
McCaskill, Missouri
Mikulski, Maryland
Nelson, Florida
Nelson, Nebraska
Pryor, Arkansas
Rockefeller, West Virginia
Salazar, Colorado
Tester, Montana
Webb, Virginia

I think we all know how Dianne Feinstein would have voted, had she bothered. Joining her in not voting were Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama.

[ReluctantActivist]

Time for a change....again. My Maryland Senators caved along with the rest. I agree with little brother's comment re. the Democrats- "They may be a SLOWER evil, or a WEAKER evil, but they're not a LESSER evil."

[EdRocktober]

It's painfully obvious that the Dems had no intention of doing any of the thing they were elected to do

In thier eyes the citizens are merely peasants who only have the right to be governed,fight thier wars and pay taxes

This Republic is dead and gone

[ArchAngel]

See the film Atonement.

See the terrible results of war.

See the terrible results of a single lie.

Now get the terrible results of the present war and lies.

[Aaror]

The other (painful) option...
This is the first war fought outside of the US that has used militia since the invasion of Canada during the revolutionary war. The President has asked for, and received, unprecidented power over the National Guard (the militia owned by the states). The Governors of the states sued in court to prevent the latest power grab by the administration, and lost.
But... The State Militias, the National Guard, are still funded in part by the states, and the state National Guard units are dependant on state funding, much of the federal funding, though it is the majority, is "matching," funds. If one or more states decided to disband thier militias, or defund them, the Federal Government would have limited options to deal with it. Ultimatly the only way to recover would be a draft, the reduction of guard units in theatre, or longer deployments with shorter home times for the troops.
I am not a fan of this, but it is the only remaining way to affect the war before the next election.

[Researchguy66]

I just got off the phone with my congresswoman's office thanking her for voting Nay on HR 2764. Since my calls recently have not been so positive (as I imagine most have not been), I'm happy to provide a bit of positive reinforcement.

Let's not lose track of the fact that many of our Senators and Congresspersons did not vote to support this appropriations bill. You can check your representative's and your senators' voting record on HR2764 as house.gov or senate.gov.

[veracity]

Mr. Jackson, it is far worse than merely "abdicating the legislative birthright" (of American consitutional democracy) or giving Mr. Bush another 70 billion taxpayer dollars to spend as he sees fit. (Clearly, skimming off a few million dollars for political friends of Mr. Bush from this vast sum is child's play... even before the Bush-Cheney assumption of power, the CIA had huge "black ops" budgets, and now even the visibile agencies of government are all but off limits to investiative reporters and investigative audits.)
No, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Jay Rockefeller, et al, are FULLY COMPLICIT in the transformation of the United States into a Stazi/Gestpo/KGB police state. Reid tried to rush the FISA 'reform'/telecom immunity bill through Congress, and past American news consumers, during the hectic holiday season. aka The "unlimited surveillance and spying on Americans" bill, with NO accountability or even friendly judicial oversight!
Pelosi topped Reid's treachery, her Congress passing Jane Harman's HR-1959, "Violent Radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism" bill. This is nothing less than a Democratic party wet-kiss stamp of approval for all the atrocious bills that came before it - the MCA, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, ending Habeas Corpus, and thereby voiding the entire spirit of the US Constitution that citizens have rights. Bush & Cheney are CONTEMPTUOUS of the notions of "citizens", and Pelosi and crew have signed on to that derision, now encoded in American law. In the eyes of the Bush-Cheney-Pelosi-Reid government, we are all no more than escaped slaves, awaiting the bounty hunters who can kill, torture, and sieze us with impunity - with the _encouragement_ of the law.
Stephen Lindman chronicles the Acts that have turned America into Police State:
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/121707Lendman.shtml
Indeed, NYT and WP not only don't cover HR-1959 in frontpage news.. but the terms are actually censored from their web-site searches! Try for yourself.
Pelosi, Reid, and the "Democratic" Congress now look on America (much less the world beyond)in the same way as Bush and Cheney do: as one vast slave plantation.

[texanna]

What an oxymoron - Democratic Leadership! There is no such thing. Someone should have told the yahoos that elected Nancy and Harry that they weren't voting for "Most Likely to Succeed" or "Prom Queen and King" when they voted them into the leadership positions. No, those positions should be occupied by somebody that understands how to play the parliamentary game with respect to politics and will not hesitate to play the game to win. Clearly, Nancy and Harry have no clue! It is almost worst having them around than the previous scumbag Rethuglicans, because we expected more from them and got so much less.

[Sundialsvc4]

Mr. Jackson, let us no longer be taken in by this "little contretemps," and let us by our collective writings no longer merely soothe it.

Many of the courageous men and their wives, who gave us this country in the first place, were journalists and writers. And they did not write "a newspaper." They wrote with fire, and they told the unvarnished truth, and with it they built a nation.

We can analyze their pathetic excuses, sir, but at the end of the day will they ever be one drop more than the immolating exculpations of a mass-murderer? No, they will not! And therefore we must speak plainly while there may yet still be time.

Death itself is silence; and silence, death itself.

The voting records of these evildoers is today more public than Thomas Paine himself could ever have made it: at http://thomas.loc.gov, our own Congressional librarians document and publish every wickedness almost in real-time. It is a damning record.

A single light burns in Christ Church tower this night: "one if by land."

[handyallen1]

it is now offically the democrats war the majority has funded it and must accept responsibility for this war they wont stop

[zenx98]

3rd party
The "majority" parties have both shown themselves to be trump cards of the same suit and left most of the "real folk" from the left and the right (if such a thing ever really existed) holding the bag!
If there was ever a time to forcibely move the country off its' corporate, business as usual, gridlock mindset that has come!!!
There are MORE than enough common sense minded people that used to call themselves Republican or Democratic that are now more united by the common challenges the nation now faces from the collateral damage inflicted,...than they were ever truly separated by the feeble labels used by the power elite to keep them separated.

Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Independents, find your common ground!
Shoulder UP!

[zjr909]

Everytime I start to agree with the thoughts expressed in these comments, I pinch myself and remember "Oh yeah, this is America we're talking about here." Just because the American people voted the Democrats in office last November specifically to end the Iraq war - doesn't mean the people actually want the war to end. It isn't just Congress that's play-acting - it's almost everyone. "Bring our troops home now!" the people all shout; then add a parenthetical "kind of, sort of, maybe bring 'em home - ya know?" And let's face it, if the Democrats give in to what the people want this particular split second - and somehow miraculously Iraq gets all better - there will never be another Democrat elected again. Ever again. So as frustrating as it is watching the Democrats continually cave, this damn ability to put myself in other people's shoes makes me see exactly why they cave. Bottom line: we have the government we seem to want. We like our leaders best when they speak out of both sides of their mouths. Lets us know they're just like us.

[drivenalmostcrazy]

this Congress should be locked out of their offices when they come back.Let them go get real jobs. and let monkeys sit in Congress; they'll do a better job.