Two Games

Kevin Drum says I'm wrong about who wins the testimony battle. In fact, though, we're talking about two different battles. I'm saying the GOP needed a big win in PR terms to prevent the war's unpopularity from dragging them even further down in 2008. Kevin's saying the Democrats needed a big win in order to end the war. Nobody got a big win, so the war will continue, and the Republicans will be dragged down by the war's unpopularity.

In terms of actually ending the war, I think all prospect of doing so before 2009 was more-or-less signed away when Democrats decided to accept Bush's framing of the "fund the troops" question and grant Bush an un-amended supplemental appropriation after he vetoed the amended one. Challenging that framing would have been politically challenging, but possibly doable. Having done what they did, though, it'd be extremely difficult to turn around, and there's no sign of any inclination to do so anyway.

Comments

I thyink this is right but nonetheless I think Democrats would be well served, not only policy wise, but politically, top refight the funding framing fight.

Even if they lose because of Blue Dogs, the core of the Party Establishment can rekindle good feeling for themselves with the base.

Of course, the best thing woul;d be actually setting a date certain for withdrawal, but even trying is the smart thing for Dems to do.

Posted by Armando | September 11, 2007 5:38 PM

Having done what they did, though, it'd be extremely difficult to turn around

Except that it's a message most Americans are already quite willing to believe. They're just waiting for their elected leaders to catch up with them.

If the Democrats come to their senses and end the pursuit of a 60 vote strategy, they can demand the wrap up of this war. If they do, they'll gain back many of the supporters they lost when they caved back in May.

If they don't, their supporters will abandon them. There's no guarantee that they'll still have majorities in 2009. Or the presidency for that matter.

Congress needs to assert itself as a co-equal branch of government. They can't rely on a Democratic president to save the country.

Posted by Jinchi | September 11, 2007 5:42 PM

If the Democrats come to their senses and end the pursuit of a 60 vote strategy, they can demand the wrap up of this war.

How? What would they do that would end the war? Don't just say that Congress lacks the necessary will, propose an actual strategy.

Posted by Gabriel | September 11, 2007 5:53 PM

Gabriel:

jinchi is familiar with his Constitution. Take a gander at Article 1, Section 8.

Posted by Armando | September 11, 2007 5:55 PM

Re Armando's "Take a Gander at Article 1, Section 8"
-----------

How do I get a "Letter of Marque and Reprisal"
against some of the special interests pushing this war??

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 6:04 PM

Matt,

How could any "win in PR terms" in September of 2007 help the GOP in November of 2008? The extent to which Iraq is an albatross for Republicans in '08 will depend on the facts on the ground then. For that reason, it makes good political sense for Republicans to do whatever will increase the chances conditions in Iraq will be better this time next year. Clearly, continuing the surge as long as practicable (i.e., next spring), with the a couple of small concessions on troop withdrawals (as Petraeus has offered) -- instead of cutting it short prematurely -- increases those chances.

Also, the idea that Republicans would derive any political benefit from agreeing to a "date certain" for withdrawal now is ludicrous. Here's an extreme thought experiment that should clarify things for you. Imagine President Bush announced this week that he had a change of heart and would order all U.S. troops out of Iraq within six months. Now, fast forward to this time next year. How, exactly, would this help the GOP at all? Iraq, sans American troops might be a Darfur on steroids by then; even if there were no American troops in-country, Iraq would still be in the news, and the unfolding disaster would still be associated mainly with a Republican President.

Posted by Fred | September 11, 2007 6:04 PM

Take a gander at Article 1, Section 8.

Good luck making that happen without 60 votes. So what was your point, again?

Posted by Gabriel | September 11, 2007 6:04 PM

It does, indeed, take 60 votes to fund the war. I'm surprised you can't work out the plan to end the war based on that.

Posted by Steve | September 11, 2007 6:09 PM

Re "Don't just say that Congress lacks the necessary will, propose an actual strategy. "
----------
Have several Democratic Senators who are not up for reelection for 5 years filibuster the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 until Bush provides an acceptable roadmap for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq within a date certain.

IF problems arise in Iraq -- and that is an unsupported claim made by the same neocon brainiacs who got us into this horrible mess -- then Congress can deal with them when they arise.

To His credit, Republican Senator John Warner asked the question that the Democrats were too cowardly to ask: is having American troops in Iraq making American safer? (Which is the only justification for risking the lives of our soldiers.) Petraeus's answer: "I don't know".

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 6:12 PM

As I type CNN and Barbara Starr (gawd what a suckass) is reporting all sorts of super duper just released "intelligence" about Iran and the Taliban. Israeli airstrikes on Hezbollah in Syria. Bushco applauding Israel as a show of force against Iran. BIG time propagandizing in full gear and a speech by bush thursday.

Iraq is so "yesterday".

Posted by magisterludi | September 11, 2007 6:16 PM

Note that Congress grants Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private individuals/groups -- and that authority is outside the control of the President.

Just as command of the militias --including the National Guard -- is under the control of the State Governors unless Congress gives it to the President. What's given can be taken away.

The National Guard makes up roughly 40% of the Army's combat units. Congress is well within its Constitutional authority to return the National Guard to the States and to return command of the Guard units to the State Governors.

Congress also has the Constitutional authority to take the NRA at its word -- and to call out all NRA members for militia service in Iraq.

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 6:22 PM

PS All active NRA members have membership numbers -- which should help with the paperwork when making up the dog tags.

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 6:24 PM

PS Replacement of National Guard troops with NRA members in Iraq is also a cost-savings measure consistent with Congress's power of the purse.

No money is needed for supplying NRA members with M16s -- they already have their private arms. They can fight Sadr's militias and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia with deer rifles. Congress can make up for any deficiencies by giving some NRA members flintlock rifles, a horn of gunpowder, and 40 lead balls --per the Militia Act of 1796.
After all, COngress --not the President -- sets the standards for the Militia.

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 6:29 PM

PS I may be wrong, but I think Karl Rove is in the NRA. Certainly Dick Cheney and Zell Miller are.

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 6:30 PM

Isn't the preznit going to ask for an additional $50 mil? Perhaps Congress could make that funding contingent on withdrawal of the troops, beginning on 1/1/08? And then, after the preznit vetoes, keep sending the same bill back to him until he signs it? Or until the money runs out and he has to start withdrawing troops anyway?

I don't know, maybe I'm just a non-credentialed halfwit hippie, but it seems fairly non-controversial to me, foreign policy experts and pundits notwithstanding. The majority of Americans want us out of Iraq. When are the Democrats who were elected to end the war going to just end the fucking war?

Posted by commie atheist | September 11, 2007 7:00 PM

Re commie's comment "Isn't the preznit going to ask for an additional $50 mil?"
---------
Try $147 BILLION.

Posted by Don Williams | September 11, 2007 7:54 PM

And then, after the preznit vetoes, keep sending the same bill back to him until he signs it? Or until the money runs out and he has to start withdrawing troops anyway?

I'd be all for it, but Democrats rejected this strategy months ago and endorsed Bush's view that in the case of this sort of standoff they would be the ones denying money to troops in the field. I think it was a huge fuck-up, but having made it it's hard to undo.

(it's also worth saying that for various technical reasons, absence of appropriations probably wouldn't cause a troop withdrawal; the vagaries of Pentagon accounting would let the president shift funds around from other areas at least for a while.)

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 11, 2007 8:18 PM

Matthew:

On the President's power to "shift funds around" - well, it does not exist under the Constitution. But of course that's never stopped Bush before and Dems have never done anything about it.

But the problem is more practical than that - there is not a loose 147 billion sitting around waiting to be "shifted around."

Bush could, at best, do it for a couple of weeks.

Let me remind you that Reagan could not "shift around" 40 million for the Contras in the 80s. He had to sell missiles to Iran and get the Sultan of Brunei to give the Contras $10 million.

Due respect, the shifting around argument is an urban legend.

Posted by Armando | September 11, 2007 8:34 PM

How about Congress funds the war but attaches a tax? So long as we're in Iraq, the tax pays for it in real time. Maybe a gas tax so everyone hates the war even more, or put a tax on higher incomes or dividends to divide the Republican base.

The Dems would have to be serious cowards if they still let Bush pin the "not funding troops" label on them if he vetoes.

Name it the "George Bush War Tax Act" for good measure.

Posted by Oberon | September 11, 2007 11:05 PM

Republicans run the table in 2008 and then pay for it for the next 40 years.

Posted by JC | September 12, 2007 12:11 AM

Oberon:

I like the War Tax idea -- the point is to ask REPEATEDLY why it's fair to send the same soldiers to Iraq AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, but somehow NOT fair to ask anybody else to sacrifice a nickel.

Posted by STS | September 12, 2007 12:45 AM

Matt is exactly right that game was up once the Democrats rolled on the Iraqi supplemental back in February-March. A lot of people did not want to believe that at the time, but it was obvious given the political schedule. They could have made a stand then that might have made a difference, but they decided to cower in the corner and hope the Republicans implode on their own. And lucky Dems, that appears to be happening. Of course, that is happening at the cost of the war continuing (but bigger!) and the imperial presidency continuing (but expanding!), etc.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | September 12, 2007 3:58 PM

"As I type CNN and Barbara Starr (gawd what a suckass) is reporting all sorts of super duper just released "intelligence" about Iran and the Taliban. Israeli airstrikes on Hezbollah in Syria. Bushco applauding Israel as a show of force against Iran. BIG time propagandizing in full gear and a speech by bush thursday.

Iraq is so "yesterday"."

Got THAT right! These idiots are still arguing over Iraq, when Iran is NOW RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER!

Israel is now claiming that North Korea has supplied nuclear weapons technology to SYRIA, no less! Apparently the air strike done the other day was either to take that out, or to surveill it.

And guess what! The ONLY intelligence the US has about that is from...Israel. And not only that, the only guy who admits to knowing anything about it is...Stephen Hadley!

Remember those names from the Iraq run up?

From Wikipedia:

"Hadley was a member of the White House Iraq Group. He admitted fault in allowing a disputed claim about Iraq's quest for nuclear weapons material to be included in Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address."

Meanwhile, most of Petraeus's testimony was about how Iran is THE enemy in Iraq, bigger than Al Qaeda and bigger than the Sunni insurgency (which he barely mentioned.)

They're moving US and UK troops to the border of Iran and building fortified checkpoints there. Naturally this will lead to border conflicts, incursions, and eventually full-scale war.

Anybody who can't see the Iran war is within weeks or months of occurring has a severe problem with reality.

Get with the program, people! The war on Iran is a DONE DEAL!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 13, 2007 4:37 AM