Posted on 11/13/2007 8:13:24 AM PST by MNJohnnie
As the congressional session lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq.
The numbers tell a story of political and substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing to acknowledge publicly, or perhaps even to themselves.
Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.
Only one of those has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats. That one was vetoed by Bush.
Indeed, the only war legislation enacted during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.
Disapproval of the Democratic majority in Congress has risen steadily, albeit with no corresponding increase in enthusiasm for Republicans.
Even more notably, public opinion about the war — while still dominated by opposition to a military adventure most people think was a mistake — has risen modestly in recent weeks, according to several nonpartisan polls. See Also
* Money woes keep GOP worried about 2008 * Note to staffers: Trust your candidate * Rudy parody less than 'glamorous'
Democrats plan to spend the December recess reviewing their strategy and determining if they missed opportunities to put limitations, even if they were smaller than war activists were demanding, on Bush’s war policies.
Some Democratic strategists are warning that congressional leaders are “muddling through” with a strategy that carries both political and military risks for the party.
John Podesta, who runs the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, is advising Democrats to try to shift war policy around the edges while carefully setting the stage for an easier withdrawal when the next president takes office.
There may well have been paths not taken this year that would have produced better results.
But what the year has mostly highlighted is that Democrats and anti-war activists were in the grip of two illusions after their triumph in the 2006 elections.
The first illusion is that taking power on Capitol Hill was by its very nature — no matter the precise legislation that emerged — something that would alter the basic dynamics of Iraq policy.
Instead, it’s now clear that even a weakened, and in many ways discredited, president remains the dominant policymaker on Iraq.
For 50 years, legislators of both parties have ceded war-making power to the executive branch, and there is no reversing that in a matter of months — least of all when the opposition party is itself divided over what to do.
What’s more, it turns out that Washington matters less than many Democrats and even many journalists supposed in determining political momentum in the Iraq debate.
Events on the ground — including regular, if still fragmentary, evidence that security is improving somewhat in the wake of the military’s “surge” policy — matter more.
The second illusion is that Democrats could stall substantively and still prosper politically.
A few months ago, many lawmakers were saying something like this: “It’s true we can’t force Bush’s hand on Iraq because we do not have veto-proof majorities. But the longer he sticks with an unpopular war, the better it will be for Democrats, and eventually the moderates and war skeptics in the GOP will stage a full revolt.”
This might yet come true by the next election, in 2008. For now, it looks like substantive weakness — the failure to drive policy changes on Iraq — has reinforced political weakness.
“Republicans (including the president) have made real progress in swaying opinion to their side, while 10 months of Democratic efforts have failed to persuade citizens that the war continues to be a disaster,” according to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who analyzed public opinion on the nonpartisan Pollster.com.
“The war of partisan persuasion has tilted towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats, at least in this particular aspect.”
This surprising turn has prompted a what-if debate among Democratic lawmakers.
Some of them have told us privately that their leaders botched a chance earlier this year — before the surge appeared to have some success — to work with Republicans on modest restrictions on the war.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told us last week his biggest fear early on was that Democrats would seek compromise solutions with moderate Republicans on the war and other issues.
Blunt suggested the strategy probably would have worked.
But once Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), a staunch war opponent, returned from a visit to Iraq and applauded the surge, any chance of a compromise clampdown ended.
Repeated predictions that GOP support was on the verge of collapsing never materialized, and Republican support for the war is probably stronger today than when Democrats took power.
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said the only strategic miscalculation Democrats might have made was “failing to grasp how much Republicans were willing to stick with the president.”
Still, he said Republicans pursued unity at their own peril.
“The Republicans own this thing, lock, stock and barrel.”
For the first time in years, Republicans are privately telling their members with a straight face that the war, in political terms, may be neutralized for next year’s election, which would have big ramifications for both sides.
A word of caution before we go into the numbers: Republicans remain broadly disliked, the war remains powerfully unpopular and opinion is prone to shift rapidly with events.
That said, 44 percent of Americans now believe the war is going “very” or “fairly” well, a high point in the past year, according to The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a nonpartisan group.
At the same time, CBS News polling has found U.S. opposition to Bush’s troop surge softening a bit.
Yes, public opposition to the war remains high.
But there has been a small uptick even in the number of independents and Democrats who are optimistic the surge might work (though most remain pessimistic).
The Democratic base’s negative view of the war also has lessened of late.
This summer, CBS News found that 57 percent of Democrats thought the war was going “very badly.”
Today, the number has fallen by 12 points, to 45 percent.
The changing views probably have little to do with Congress, said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“You have also had the near absence of the war coverage in the last months, and since the coverage is generally negative, the less coverage, the less negative communications that reaches people’s living rooms.”
Pew reported Friday that only 16 percent of Americans name the Iraq war as the news story that first comes to mind today — a huge shift.
In January, when Democrats took office, 55 percent of Americans said Iraq was on the top of their minds. Pelosi is trying to end the congressional year on a familiar note.
She is pushing for a House vote on legislation that would directly tie new money for the war to specific troop withdrawals.
It would provide Bush only $50 billion of the $196 billion he requested for war operations.
And it has no chance of becoming law. Manley said the Senate would push similar legislation, likely next week.
Meanwhile, both sides must contemplate the most dispiriting piece of Iraq arithmetic of all.
At the start of the year, there had been 3,003 U.S. military casualties in Iraq.
Now there have been 3,860 — already making this the deadliest year of the five-year military campaign.
David Paul Kuhn and Avi Zenilman contributed to this story.
Hillary Clinton calling General Petraeus a lier to his face will stay with me a long-long time.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“The war of partisan persuasion has tilted towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats, at least in this particular aspect.”
...........................................
This despite the heroic efforts of the MSM to kill any type positive news from Iraq.
That headline could have been from any day since about mid-2002.
Let the demonuts commit political suicide if they want to — I love it.
Article appearing at RCP.com (linked from www.yahoo.com) indicated
that the army will drawdown forces currently deployed in Iraq
from approx 165K to 140-145K by mid-summer 2008. I think
the article said that the number of combat brigades would be drawn
down from current 20 to 19 (immediately) and then to 15 by mid-summer
2008
MV.
They had a chance to nip the surge in the bud, and they blew it. Boo hoo. Now they become one of the major losers of the War in Iraq.
A step behind the Military establishment that announced draw-downs yesterday? Thats a real think tank you have there John.
Take this test to see how you agree with your candidate. You may be surprised at the outcome.
Thinking about next year’s election ... already made up your mind? still deciding? try this fascinating website!
Takes about 1-2 minutes.
Having trouble deciding who to vote for in 2008?
This will compare your answers with ALL candidates.
I found this to be of interest .... It did not select the candidate I had expected!
Of even more interest was which were way down the list - and why..
Click on the website below
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
So now what do our esteemed leaders do? An asset class central to the perceived well-being of 70% of Americans and supporting large numbers of workers is grossly overvalued and just beginning to correct. To allow the correction to continue without interference, which is what should have happened in 2001, will surely lead to a significant recession and really unhappy voters. To create adequate liquidity to support the overvalued asset class would cause a currency that is trading below the Canadian dollar to collapse even further. Can you say parity with the peso?
My bet is that we will continue to see profiles in cowardice in Washington. The dollar will continue to fall, and any recession in 2008 will be mild. God help us in 2009, however. The day of reckoning cannot be postponed forever.
Interesting. I got a 43, which agreed with McCain, Hunter, and Thompson. The left-wing loons were waaay down, with a score of 8.
As you said,I was surprised at the lineup.
And on the Dem side my top 'choice' is Rudy at 33, then Biden at 19. Last is Hillary at 7.
(Yes I consider Rudy a DEM -- because he IS. He's a 'Christian' Joe Lieberman)
U.S. pulling 3,000 troops from Iraq's Diyala province (the second large unit to leave Iraq)
See the story linked at post #16.
Democrats Becoming Desperate in Efforts to End Iraq War [semi-satire]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announce that she is “giving the president one last chance to agree to a plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq. Her Iraq War funding bill would appropriate $50 billion for the troops, but only on condition that the President accede to Democrats’
demands that he start pulling them out immediately and complete the withdrawal by the end of 2008.
“This may be our last chance to decide the outcome of this war,” Pelosi said. “The situation in Iraq is very unstable and there are signs that the tide may have turned permanently against us. If we don’t get the troops out
soon there’s no telling what might happen.”
Pelosi said her Party’s push to end the war is aimed at “keeping our commitment to the American people. We promised voters that a Democratic Congress would end this war. Bush’s claim that we—the United States, I
suppose he means—could still ‘win’ this war is pure speculation. It isn’t part of our agenda. Winning cannot be guaranteed. Getting out can be guaranteed. Why take a chance when we can bet on a sure thing?”
Pelosi’s remarks were echoed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev). “As I’ve said before, the war is lost,” Reid said. “Let’s acknowledge this fact and get our troops out before we do too much damage.”
Both Pelosi and Reid rejected the option of simply de-funding the war. “We’re not going solo on this,” Reid said. “It would be too risky. If things got worse, the right wing media would try to blame us. No, this war is President Bush’s fault. His blame for that must not be obscured by partisan politics. He must join with the Democratic Party in a bi-partisan plan to end this
conflict. That’s the only acceptable way out of this mess.”
In related news, Representative David Obey (D-Wis.) gave his own unique take on the war, saying that reports alleging a favorable trend in Iraq are misleading. “The only reason why the violence in Iraq may have been
declining over the course of the year is because practically everyone in the country has already been killed,” Obey declared. “Between al-Qaeda, the militias, the Iranians and our own troops, I don’t see how anyone could survive in that kind of crossfire.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
- Benjamin Franklin
Peloser and Reid:
Nutburger and Nutburgerier
Like Clinton needed “Gun Control” hanging out there as an issue, the Dims need Iraq as an issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.