The May 10th, 2007 vote on the McGovern Amendment, which failed to pass the U.S. House of Representatives 171-255...garnering the votes of 74% of the Democratic Caucus and 2 Republicans...may prove to be the high water mark for Democratic legislation intending to end our nation's occupation of Iraq.
The title of the McGovern Amendment was simple:
H.R. 2237: To provide for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq
It had a fixed start and end point. It did what it said.
Here's the title of the current bill gaining popularity as the "bipartisan alternative" to McGovern:
H.R. 3087: To require the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
Notice any significant differences here?
I wrote a piece at the beginning of the 110th Congress titled Crafting the 60 Percent Position. The wording was deliberate. Legislative leaders don't just stumble upon winning positions, they build them vote by vote. (Well, they build them vote by vote or they watch as their majority is stolen from them.) One of the basic secrets to crafting the 60 percent position is to have enough party discipline that you start with the majority of the majority. That's what political parties are for; our party's political positions are supposed to mean something when it comes to writing the law.
That Washington Post article is illustrative. It holds up as a shining example of "long ago bipartisan success" the passage of NAFTA in 1993:
That is what Democrats did in 1993, when most House Democrats opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Bill Clinton backed NAFTA, and leaders of the Democratic-controlled House allowed it to come to a vote. The trade pact passed because of heavy GOP support, with 102 Democrats voting for it and 156 voting against. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the House GOP leader at the time, declared: "This is a vote for history, larger than politics . . . larger than personal ego."
The next year in 1994 Democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives: a "vote for history" indeed.
::
H.R. 3087, the bipartisan Abercrombie Bill calling for the President to come up with a non-binding plan for "redeployment in Iraq" is winning converts both in terms of support and in terms of rhetoric.
What does this mean? (From the Jonathan Weisman article linked above.) It means the Democratic party is no longer starting with the majority of our majority. Not in the least:
Just before the August recess, more than a dozen lawmakers met to forge a new, centrist push. A major meeting is planned in the next two weeks to bring disparate, ad hoc groups together into a cohesive caucus that would be large enough to force showdowns, even if it meant using parliamentary tactics to embarrass the leaders into concessions.
"If you had a group of people who were centrists and who were agreeing on issues strongly enough, something like that might practically happen," Lampson said, "but I don't think that's the goal."
If the group could hold firm, Pelosi would face a choice of governing with a centrist coalition from both parties, or face a full-scale revolt.
Make no doubt. The "centrists" are willing to challenge the Speaker on this one. This is a preemptive play by Majority Leader Hoyer, who, by the way, voted against the 74% of Democrats who supported the McGovern Amendment (From the Mike Soraghan article from the Hill above):
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) came out on Wednesday in favor of holding a vote on a bipartisan Iraqi withdrawal bill. Meanwhile, the party’s left wing renewed calls for a pullout and announced a new campaign to block funds for arming and training the Iraq Security Force [snip]
"I would like to see us move forward on that," Hoyer said. "The president ought to come up with a plan for withdrawal."
But Democratic liberals have criticized the plan for providing "cover" to Republicans on the Iraq issue. At a marathon news conference, members of the Out of Iraq caucus said that weapons meant for the Iraqi military are winding up in the hands of the militias.
Notice something in the reporting here? House Majority Leader Hoyer is coming out against his own majority. Soraghan wrote about the majority of our House caucus as if that majority were simply "the party's left wing" or "Democratic liberals." That's not how the press covered the GOP Congress; it is how the press covers Democrats. When the majority of the Democratic Party stands up for our values, we are consistently belittled and derided. When our party caves to this pressure, we lose. Remember the 156 Democratic votes against NAFTA, the majority of our majority? The 102 in favor? Remember when we had 258 members in our House caucus? Think 1994 can't happen again?
More to the point, this isn't the "left-wing" of the Party breaking ranks; there's 73 members in the Out of Iraq caucus. Aside from a very few of those members, the 169 who voted for McGovern also voted with our majority on both Iraq compromise bills this summer. This is our Majority Leader breaking with us.
::
What's happening here is a basic question facing our political party.
Whether it's the war in Iraq or legislation regarding stem cell research, the victory of the Democratic party in 2006 means nothing if we don't pass laws that reflect the will of the American public using the majority of our representatives in the legislature. That's why the Democratic Party exists. We exist to pass legislation that reflects the coalition that gave us our majority...to craft the 60 Percent position with the "majority of our majority" in Congress.
Steny Hoyer will not build a 60% position in Congress without the 169 Democratic representatives who voted for McGovern. Not even close. What he will do in pushing a bipartisan cave-in on our position on Iraq is undermine the rationale for our party's existence, and do so with a ton of Republican votes. (And who could blame them, they know a good deal when they see one.)
How many Republicans in the House broke ranks and supported McGovern? 2.
How many Republicans in the House broke ranks and supported our two compromise bills the President vetoed this summer? 4.
When Steny Hoyer and Congressman Lampson and Congresswoman Tauscher talk about "bipartisan" solutions on Iraq, exactly what rational, reasonable Republicans are they talking about compromising with? The same rubber stamp Republicans who we lambasted up and down the campaign trail last fall? The same Republicans Speaker Pelosi just told us last spring that we were going to put the pressure on in district after district? The same GOP that brought us this mess in the first place?
What message are we sending here? Why should the Democratic Party and its majority in Congress exist? Why this push for bi-partisanship and secret meetings to push the centrist point of view at the expense of the Speaker within months of the historic 2006 elections? If there are differences of opinion within our caucus, why shouldn't our priority be to work them out together? Don't we owe that to our voters and our volunteers?
::
Let's take a look at the actual content of the Abercrombie bill itself. Many Democrats find it harmless. I find myself scratching my head.
Here are the findings of the bill:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), enacted into law on October 16, 2002, authorized the President to use the Armed Forces as the President determined necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Government of Iraq at that time.
(2) The Government of Iraq which was in power at the time the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was enacted into law has been removed from power and its leader indicted, tried, convicted, and executed by the new freely-elected democratic Government of Iraq.
(3) The current Government of Iraq does not pose a threat to the United States or its interests.
(4) After more than four years of valiant efforts by members of the Armed Forces and United States civilians, the Government of Iraq must now be responsible for Iraq's future course.
I understand what Congressman Abercrombie is trying to do here. He proposed similar legislation in an earlier bill. However, I disagree with it.
I don't think we've had an accountability moment regarding the conduct of the President and this administration and the 2002 AUMF. Like many Americans, I think the President deceived the nation in the lead up to the passage of the AUMF. That history is germane to any legislation requiring the redeployment of our forces from Iraq.
Do you want Congress to hold the President accountable for misleading the nation in the lead up to the war in Iraq? How do you think the Supreme Court would interpret these findings by Congress? Abercrombie is using the 2002 AUMF as leverage to argue that the President's rationale for war in Iraq has expired while leaving unmentioned that the AUMF was based on cooked intelligence and outright deception by our President and his administration. In effect, this validates the 2002 AUMF and provides cover for the President and anyone who voted in favor of the 2002 AUMF.
I oppose that.
::
Let's take a look at the "Sense of Congress" section of the Bill:
SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) nothing in this Act shall be construed as a recommendation by Congress that any particular contingency plan be exercised;
(2) it is necessary and prudent for the Department of Defense to undertake robust and comprehensive contingency planning;
(3) contingency planning for a redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq should address--
(A) ensuring appropriate protection for the Armed Forces in Iraq;
(B) providing appropriate protection in Iraq for United States civilians, contractors, third party nationals, and Iraqi nationals who have assisted the United States mission in Iraq;
(C) maintaining and enhancing the ability of the United States Government to eliminate and disrupt Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations; and
(D) preserving military equipment necessary to defend the national security interests of the United States; and
(4) contingency planning for a redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq should--
(A) describe a range of possible scenarios for such redeployment;
(B) outline multiple possible timetables for such redeployment; and
(C) describe the possible missions, and the associated projected number of members, of the Armed Forces which would remain in Iraq, including to--
(i) conduct United States military operations to protect vital United States national security interests;
(ii) conduct counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda in Iraq and affiliated terrorist organizations;
(iii) protect the Armed Forces, United States diplomatic and military facilities, and United States civilians; and
(iv) support and equip Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security.
I oppose this section on three grounds:
- The only thing it obligates the President to do is to come up with a non-binding contingency plan. (Subsection (1))
- It opens the door for the President to claim that he was authorized by Congress to plan for significant and expansive missions in Iraq with combat troops who are specifically left behind. (Subsection (4)(C) (i-iv))
- How can anyone, after the 2002 AUMF, defer to this President on Iraq? Congress should be telling the President what to do through oversight and the power of the purse, as in McGovern, not granting him completely new areas of authorization, even as a contigency.
Call me crazy and over cautious, but after we gave President Bush an inch in 2002 he took twenty miles. And now we want to have Congress "ask him" to come up with plans for an ongoing occupation of Iraq? Are you kidding me?
I think the lamest excuse in my lifetime in Democratic politics is the one you hear those who voted for the AUMF give: "nobody thought the President would abuse his power and trust granted to him in the AUMF that way." Everybody knew.
Friends, why are we doing it again? And why are we potentially breaking up our majority to do it again? Does that make any sense?
::
I do think there is a significant debate to be had on Iraq policy within the Democratic Party. When our leaders talk about redeployment of our "combat forces" in Iraq, they mean something very different from what the Democratic voters and activists who helped bring the Democratic Party to our majority in 2006 mean by "ending this war." This is a debate and a discussion we will have to have.
My objection to Abercrombie is not simply the content of the bill, but the fact that it is being used so tranparently by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to break the back of our majority in Congress. I am convinced that the majority of voters in the United States, a majority that is much larger than the pool of Democratic voters, voted for a meaningful change of course leading to the end of our occupation of Iraq. I think Markos has it exactly right when he says that the American public wants to bring our troops home so they can be with their kids. It's that simple.
Abercrombie does not do that. Further, I do not trust a single GOP member of Congress to help us do the right thing if we can't hold together and do it oursevles. And, increasingly, I do not trust that Congressman Steny Hoyer has the interests of our majority at heart in his machinations here.
Those who think HR 3087 is harmless aren't seeing the same playing field I'm seeing. First, I don't think it's harmless. Second, I think it is a huge step backward from the bill the President vetoed and what the Senate filibustered last July. Third, I think that House Majority Leader Hoyer is using HR 3087 to break the back of his own majority and undercut the Speaker. (If the House Majority Leader takes part in these secret meetings that are intended to force Pelosi to abandon her majority to work from the center through "showdowns" and tactics, he should lose his position, imo.)
I am in favor of the netroots doing field work and organizing in district to generate local opposition to HR 3087 as a way to stand up for our majority and stand up for the Speaker of the House. We will not likely pass legislation quite as strong as McGovern anytime soon. We will have to compromise within our caucus and work together. But I think the Democratic Party's victory in 2006 will be called into question if we don't stick together and come up with a piece of legislation calling for a withdrawal FROM Iraq with a date certain that delivers for the 60% of the country who support that position and wins the votes of the majority of Democrats in Congress.
If Hoyer splits our Majority on Iraq a la NAFTA he is betraying the hard work of every last Democrat who won him that majority.
And that's why I oppose Abercrombie and don't find it "harmless."