Dem leadership on Iraq is now stumbling so incompetently, this week even Alabama right winger Jeff Sessions can snare the moral high ground simply by telling the truth about us.
Somehow, Dem party policy forbids any discussion of HR 508 or even of Obama's bill, either of which would get us out of Iraq during the coming year. Instead, the approved options are: stay the course and scold the president (Levin and Warner's non-binding bill), or scold the president's escalation while vowing to stay the course (Dodd's binding bill).
So Iraq has already become the Democrats' war. No evasion or deception is needed when Sessions says:
Passing a toothless resolution that says, "We do not support the policy that we are funding today," to me is not worthy of the Senate.
I never dreamed I'd ever be complimenting Sessions. I laugh out loud when I see that even the Google Toolbar knows how to complete his name - showing "Alabama", "Senator" and "racist" as the three best matches.
But we've sunk lower than I dreamed. Thursday morning on CSPAN's Washington Journal, Sessions was saying what Democratic leaders should be saying:
We have a right to question. We have a right to debate. ... If we need to change our policy at some point, this debate will let us do that. The debate just needs to be in a way that, to me, is worthy of a great Senate. Passing a toothless resolution that says, "We do not support the policy that we are funding today," to me is not worthy of the Senate, it's not a good idea.
(Replying to a question about the Senate resolutions)
[The Democrats' resolution] confirms the Command in Chief's power, respects the ability of the military to conduct these kind of operations, but it disapproves the policy, which I think is odd and contradictory. ...
Frankly, I don't think we need any resolution.
Frankly, we have done what we are supposed to do, which is fund our troops, we've supported the Commander in Chief, but we have the constitutional duty at any moment to cut off all funding and force those troops to come home. We have that ability. That's not being undertaken now, because I think our colleagues on the Democratic side, and others on the Republican side, who are unhappy with the war, are not prepared to go that far.
Just a week ago, to some of us it seemed like genius to combine the president's unpopular escalation plan with blind 'support the troops' rhetoric as political cover. Heck, even a refried 'Stay the Course' would look smart next to Bush. Make sure it's about escalation, not getting out, and that it's non-binding - why take any chances?
As others predicted, it backfired. The 30 most hawkish Senators have every reason to oppose an anti-Bush resolution. While the 20 most liberal are loathe to blindly hand away their only leverage - funding - even in a non-binding show of submission. It's lose-lose scenario, which could even end up with Democrats endorsing a binding "Stay the Course" proposal like Dodd's to prove their loyalty.
Though this was utterly predictable, Harry Reid is acting panicked and surprised, so embarrassed that he's finally becoming famous - for cutting off debate on Iraq in the Senate, taking over the funding of the Iraq war, and somehow losing with a majority.
It may be 2 years before we have real leaders in the Congress and Senate. Don't wait for Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi - on Iraq, this year you'll get more frankness and spine out of Jeff Sessions.
I'm not bashing the party. Democrats have dozens of the greatest Congress people, but they're not in leadership. Support Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, and Dennis Kucinich as well as John Murtha and Barack Obama when they speak for the 85% of Democrats who want Iraq war funding ended. And don't keep getting sidetracked into demonstrations of weakness by leaders who don't know how to play poker.
Contact your Senators and Congressperson about HR 508 and demand we get out of Iraq this year.