Joshua Holland: Does Dem-Controlled Congress Stand On Brink Of Irrelevance On Iraq?

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/61506

Democratically Controlled Congress Stands on the Brink of Irrelevance on Iraq

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted September 6, 2007.

- snip -

But despite the reality on the ground, the administration last week threw a Hail-Mary pass, announcing that it would ask for another $50 billion for war-fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan through next Spring. That's in addition to $147 billion already requested for the two countries.

There's no reason to believe the administration won't get it -- consider how many times congressional Democrats have uttered some variant of "It's time we stopped giving Bush a blank check for Iraq" as they signed a series of blank checks for Iraq. Bush has proved that he can continue moving the goalposts again and again without being called on it by the media, and Congress has shown that it will let him, even eight months after the Democratic take-over of Capitol Hill.

It has become a game. The reality is that there is no $50 billion supplemental, and there won't be for several weeks (if at all this year). The stories about the new funding request are White House "plants," announced on the eve of the much-anticipated Iraq progress report in order to show confidence in the face of waning public support for the occupation and, more importantly, to divert the national conversation from the failure of the troop escalation -- a failure that should lead to a debate about how to exit Iraq with the minimum of damage -- to a new debate about whether higher troop levels should remain until next spring. You don't have to look too hard to see the goalposts moving.

It's much like the surge itself, a stop-gap measure that nobody seriously believed had a chance of changing the ugly situation in Iraq. It was, however, spectacularly successful in distracting the country from its post-election discourse about ending the occupation, focusing instead on the now-familiar argument that war opponents should wait until September's progress report. At that point, the tacit understanding was that Congress would rise up and demand an end to the war if the 18 benchmarks weren't met. Now that September is here, we're supposed to focus on the next shiny object.

The Democrats are reacting to this charade by conceding the battle before it begins, with Michigan's Carl Levin offering to remove a deadline from the amendment he and Jack Reed, D-R.I., co-sponsored (the deadline was already riddled with loopholes) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offering to "compromise" with Senate Republicans by dropping his already watered-down demand for a spring "withdrawal."

As Dick Durbin, the senate majority whip, told the Chicago Tribune, "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do." He opposes the war, but "felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field."

MORE

[mmonk]

1. Not really.

They funded the surge and escalation. They are very relevant to the policy. They are part of the military, industrial, congressional complex.

[saltpoint]

2. Roughly half the voters in 2000 and 2004 voted for George W. Bush.

Before the 110th Congress ever convened, this half of our voting population put a vacuous freak in the White House.

A vacuous freak with a veto pen, and at the time, significant legislative majorities.

After November 06 we have the thinnest majorities in both chambers. Ideologically, the trend is still purple to light red and voters will have to decide how much meaningful reform they want from their Congress.

If voters send a mixed bunch to Washington to convene a Congress, the question must be put to those voters. It's easy for me to dismiss someone like John Boehner, but his constituents return him time and again to the Congress. I can't assail the fly when it's the ointment that attracts it that's to blame.

I don't know how to change the ointment, at least not quickly or easily. This is a nation that sends both Russ Feingold and Tom Coburn to the Congress. It's an ointment problem.

[KharmaTrain]

3. But But But But....

Sheesh...I hate when reality hits home in DU-land. It ruins all sorts of utopian dreams, dreamers and their ability to rant and "demand" accountability.

While many will debate the legitigamacy of the '00 and '04 elections, you nailed it. Moreso the case in '04 when 60 millions people not only voted for this regime but for more bloodletting in Iraq. The facts were known at the time about no Iraq-9/11 connection, how the invasion had gone poorly and was getting worse and this regime was loaded with crooks and liars, yet 60 million people voted for more of the same. While booosh's popularity tanked, there are still many who may not like this fukstick, but they still are very pro-military and it scares Democrats shitless when it comes to votes to defund this illegal invasion.

If you read the "tea leaves" around here, you'd think the Democrats have 400 House Seats and 75 Senate ones...that 100% of the voting electorate are against the war and that Democrats are not "grateful" for the support of those in these here parts. It's as though the electorate shifted from one extreme to the other in '06...people embracing Progressive/Liberal ideals. That didn't happen. The '06 results were more a reflection on Repugnican weakness rather than Democratic strength and that remains the problem going into '08.

Anyone who thinks that Democrats are a shoe-in to win everything in '08 and litmus tests must be held on each and every candidate are asking to wake up in November '08 with a very, very rude awakening. While the Democrats are stronger now than they have been in a generation, it's still a tenuous majority and one that has taken hits from both sides...either being too soft on booosh or too hard...especially when it comes to funding this ugly invasion.

The dilemna is ending the war without destroying the military. While I would like to see this ugly war for profit defunded, I have talked to many local voters (who claim to be either Independents or "leaning" Democratic) that also want the invasion to end, but not to defund the military. It's a sticky wicket as defunding only would work with a troop drawdown or some kind of timeline...the two things this regime won't do. Politicians walk fine lines as they were home over break...speaking out against the invasion, but still attempting to "support the troops". Yes, politicians pander for votes and the last thing they want to run against next year is being seen as anti-military.

As I expected, the can on this mess has been kicked into next year...after the primaries...which was this regime's plan all along. It wasn't to capitulate to Democrats, but to create a false illusion for Repugnicans to continue to support the bloodletting (and keep their campaign money flowing) past the primaries. Any Repugnican who speaks out against this invasion is all but asking for a primary challenge and this is what's scaring many into joining Democrats in forcing booosh's hand. Reality sucks!

[saltpoint]

5. KharmaTrain, you have put a provocative post up.

Thank you for it, too.

It would make a tremendous thread all its own, by the way.

Some very nice stuff indeed.

[Rydz777]

4. Okay, so everybody caves. Then what?

Then I guess we'll get more of the status quo. Spending billions we don't have on the Iraq morass (e.g. fixing their "infrastructure" which gets blown up the next day,) wrecking our ground forces and their equipment, despoiling the country we claimed to liberate.

We'll play political process games until March 2009 when President Clinton, or President Obama, or President Edwards, or President Whoever takes the oath of office, and finds that the situation looks like September 2007, only worse. Oh, and by the way, there will be a few other problems besides the on-going war - like maybe an economic recession.

Bush has given us the definitive answer to the question, "How many years does it take to wreck a country?"