New Tactics

You've probably read this on some other blog already by now, but it seems Harry Reid has decided to further raise the stakes in the Iraq standoff. The structure of the situation is that the Senate was slated to consider the authorization bill for the Defense Department. Democrats want to attach an amendment to the bill that would provide a framework for withdrawal from Iraq. The GOP is using the filibuster to prevent a vote on this amendment. Now Reid is saying that he's going to pull the whole Pentagon authorization bill from the floor and just move on to other subjects unless the Republicans allow a vote.

It's worth keeping in mind that even if the GOP backs down eventually and an amended bill passes congress, Bush is likely to simply do what he did with the war supplemental -- veto the bill and then accuse the Democrats of refusing to fund "the troops" unless they pass an un-amended bill. To make a long story short, the country is still many, many Republican defections away from a point where congress will be able to end the war without the cooperation of a less stubborn president.

Comments

They wouldn't have needed Republican help to not pass the Iraq supplemental had they chosen to say "fuck off" to the President after he vetoed the original version, and they wouldn't need Republican help to not pass the defense authorization bill now. Those actions (or lack of action, I guess), would cut off funding for the war. Playing that kind of chicken would carry political risks that Democrats are not willing to take, but that is not the same thing as saying they cannot defund the war without Republican help.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | July 18, 2007 2:27 PM

All of this is true, but forcing Bush to actually veto the bill puts the issue in stark relief, in terms that are probably more favorable to Democrats than the inevitable centrist hand-wringing that would accompany a funding cutoff.

It also ratchets up the pressure on the Republicans who keep trying to criticize the war while voting to support it.

It's not bad political kabuki, all things considered. It doesn't really accomplish anything... but then, without the requisite 11 Republican Senate defections nothing can be accomplished anyway.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 18, 2007 2:49 PM

Any plan to end the Iraq Debacle that requires 17 Republican Senators will always fail.

If this Congress is going to end the war, it is going to have to do it by NOT funding it oast a date certain.

Will that require playing chicken with Bush? Yes.

That is why it needs to be announced in advance so the troops in the field are not cut off and that if they runh out of funds IN THE FIELD it will be Bush's fault.

The other option is to just shut up about all this.

Matt, why do you persist in thinking Republican might cooperate in this?

Posted by Armando | July 18, 2007 2:53 PM

I agree with the political analysis of LaFollette. Reid's ploy was useful politically.

Posted by Armando | July 18, 2007 2:58 PM

So, Dems, filibuster the damn Defense bill.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 18, 2007 3:00 PM

The Dems are helping Bush accomplish what he's wanted all along - keep the war going until he leaves office. Then the whole mess gets dumped on the next prez.

Posted by kafka | July 18, 2007 4:18 PM

The Dems are helping Bush accomplish what he's wanted all along - keep the war going until he leaves office.

I'm not suggesting this is actually their motivation, but it's obviously in the Dems' self-interest to keep the war going until Bush leaves office. I don't know if this is what you were trying to suggest.

Posted by Steve | July 18, 2007 4:46 PM

Steve, it may be in the Democrats' interest to have the war going for the 2008 elections, but I don't think it's in their interest for a new Democratic president to be the one who gets blamed for every bad result that comes from ending the war (and of course there will be bad results, because Bush has put us in a position where our only choice is among various paths that all lead to disasters).

Posted by KCinDC | July 18, 2007 5:25 PM

I'm not sure the American people would condemn any legislation that actually succeeded in cutting off funding for the troops there. It might actually be received with some relief.

Posted by bob h | July 18, 2007 5:31 PM

The thing to consider about allowing Bush to exit with the Iraq war still going is, how easy is it going to be for the next President to pull the plug, even if it is a Democrat (and leave aside for the moment that it is not entirely clear that Hillary, to pick one example, particularly wants to pull the plug)? Aren't the same stab-in-the-back jackals going to be circling then? Won't there be a midterm election in 2010 to think about? To say nothing of a second term for the (hopefully) Democratic President? I will be the first to admit that the forced defunding option, though possible without Republican help, is risky politically. But I think being the party of the President who presides over the "helicopters on the rooftop" scene in 2009 is going to be kind of risky too, and there will be no Bush/Cheney cabal around to draw the ire. Which makes me think there will not be such scenes in 2009, or 2010. Did people in 1968 realize that the Vietnam war was going to drag into the SECOND term of the next President? I don't know, but I am starting to think that Democrats, knowingly or not, are kicking the end of the Iraq war WAY down the line.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | July 18, 2007 6:04 PM

"To make a long story short, the country is still many, many Republican defections away from a point where congress will be able to end the war without the cooperation of a less stubborn president."

Of course, it only takes 51 Senate votes for Congress to end the war.

The problem is that there aren't 51 votes for that proposition, and there very, very likely won't be 51 votes for that proposition anytime between now and January 2009.

Republican defections are only necessary to provide political cover. They are not necessary to stop the war in terms of governmental mechanics.

Posted by Petey | July 18, 2007 6:24 PM

I wonder what the phrase "the troops" is doing in quotes in Matthew's post. Are they not troops? Is Matthew quoting someone?

I also wonder why so many people, Matthew included, refer to withdrawing the U.S. military presence from Iraq as "ending the war". Which war would be "ended" by doing this?

Posted by xmath | July 18, 2007 6:50 PM

Thanks, xmath. I meant "ending the occupation", of course. It amazing how much that language seeps in.

I assume the quotes are because the Republicans will be using that language, saying the Democrats are cutting funding for the troops rather than funding for the occupation.

Posted by KCinDC | July 18, 2007 7:06 PM

I think everyone is missing an important part of the whole dynamic here. No matter what congress does about mandating plans for withdrawal or even cutting funding Bush won't honor it. I know it sounds absurd but I believe Bush would demand the Treasury to pay the Pentagons bills, and they would, and nobody would be able to stop them.

The story from last week was that Bush burst into a White House meeting with congress critters and told them he isn't fucking changing course in Iraq.

In a way I think that is what the Republicans are afraid of when it comes to actually doing something about this mess with legislation. They are afraid it will reveal the truth, that Bush/Cheney is out of control and uncontrollable. No matter how bad it looks for the party now anything is better than a full blown constitutional crisis. Or rather whatever you might call it when the total emasculation of the legislature is made absolutely evident.

It is my crackpot theory that it is going to be economic problems which finally get us off center, on everything. There is a distinct possibility that the financial markets will start comming unglued. It is happening now actually. If the unraveling happens and is slow then the political effects will be muted. If there is a real liquidity crisis than EVERYTHING changes politically. As an eternal Cassandra I now place the odds of a severe crisis at 33%.

Now more than ever before, Bush, the GOP, Wall Street, need Ossama to lay the blame on. I won't harbor a guess on those odds.

Posted by rapier | July 18, 2007 9:33 PM

Will that require playing chicken with Bush? Yes.

Yep. Or to use another metaphor, playing poker.

The problem is, as stupid as Bush is in every other facet of life, he (actually his people's) political intuition is still pretty good. Yeah, yeah, I actually think Rove is overrated in some ways based on 2006, but he's always gotten the part about playing hardball harder than your opponents. Without that aspect, GWB isn't even around for the GOP to take a beating in '06.

So to my metaphor: Right now Doyle Brunson is playing against those folks in the Foxwoods $2/4 limit game who can't figure out why no one folds to a $4 bluff. Here's a good chance for the Dems to show they've learned a bit more about the game.

Posted by Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic | July 19, 2007 12:15 AM

It is my crackpot theory that it is going to be economic problems which finally get us off center, on everything. There is a distinct possibility that the financial markets will start comming unglued. It is happening now actually.

I'm not a great believer in the sanity of markets but I the bond market has only recently dragged itself out of the doldrums. I was cautiously Cassandraish when you were looking at an inverted yield curve, what's out there now that makes you think the markets will come unglued?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 19, 2007 12:40 AM

It's also worth keeping in mind that September is less than a month and a half away and unless Reid tells the recalcitrants on the other side of the aisle to go Cheney themselves because a new sheriff is in town, he fails to do so at his peril.

Posted by sy | July 19, 2007 3:54 PM

Who cares what Bush accuses the Dems of doing.

This is the problem, it's 2007 and everyone is STILL scared of Karl Rove, jesus christ.

Do this, let Bush accuse the Dems of 'hating the troops' or whatever, the more he goes on tv and says things no one believes, the worse it gets for him.

Posted by mike | July 19, 2007 8:49 PM