Iraq is a mess and Americans and members of Congress know it. So why is it that Americans' opinions aren't being heard?
Here is how a former envoy described the rebuilding process in Iraq:
"Once again we are proceeding to lay people's lives on a line drawn with faulty information. Once again the fantasies of the 'policy-makers' drive decisions without much link to the realities on the ground"
Ex-envoy says Iraq rebuilding plan won't work
That was true when Bush invaded Iraq and it's true about his escalation plan.
Matthew Yglesias makes the following point about the relationship between public expectation and Congressional action:
You Do What You Can
It seems to me that as of one day before Election Day 2006, progressives had a solid grasp of what good things would flow from winning congressional majorities. In brief:
- No more domestic agenda for George W. Bush.
- Oversight hearings.
- Control of the agenda to rame issues in ways favorable to the Democrats for 2008.
Sometime in December, however, people seem to have gotten it into their head that something else would happen. That narrow congressional majorities were actually going to seize control of American national security policy in the face of determined opposition from the President of the United States supported nearly uniformly by his copartisans in congress. Thus, Matt Stoller includes on his list of "groups and individuals" who are "blocking real progress on Iraq," "Harry Reid, who failed to get a vote on a non-binding resolution in the Senate, and doesn't think his original war vote was wrong. It's Bush's fault apparently that Reid voted for the war. Like with his stance on Alito, Reid is giving the impression of action, but not the teeth."
Well, no. Look, Matt Yglesias leading a caucus of 51 Democratic Senators that includes Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, and Tim Johnson couldn't get much done in these circumstances either. Nor could Matt Stoller. It's not Reid's fault that there aren't 60 votes for a non-binding resolution on Iraq in the Senate (except in the sense that the "nuclear option" fight was mishandled way back in the day, and Democrats should have tried to abolish filibusters altogether). Blame Lieberman. Blame Jeff Sessions. And, again, ask yourself: If Reid's resolution is so useless, why is the GOP so determined to defeat it? And if it's so difficult to get 60 votes for this measure, what would the point be in proposing something more far-reaching that would only fail by a larger margin? The sad reality is that what Matt and I would like to see the Democrats accomplish is, under the circumstances, very difficult to achieve. Progressives should keep the pressure on for action, but we need to understand that objective circumstances matter. This is a slow boring of hard boards kind of situation, and it's extremely frustrating, but it's also George W. Bush's fault, not Reid's.
I found this comment to Yglesias' post interesting:
If Stoller wants to blame someone for the timidity of the Democrats, perhaps he should consider our incredibly lame and ineffective anti-war "movement," which has proven utterly incapable of translating the majority of America's manifest frustration with this war into anything like effective pressure. They've totally failed to stake out a credible position to the left of the Democratic leadership, which would (a) probably be substantively correct, at least by my lights (b) more importantly, create room for maneuver so that Democrats could push stronger resolutions but still appear moderate.
link
Of course, there was the march in DC which attracted hundreds of thousands of protesters, but how does this translate to pressure and impact Congress?
This is why the Alito filibuster effort was encouraging. It coalesced public opposition to Alito.
Now Senator Dodd is trying to do the same with his restore-habeas.org and Senator Kerry with www.setadeadline.com
Without a strong effort, we take what we can get:
House passes resolution opposing troop build-up
After four days of debate, the House of Representatives just approved a non-binding resolution that opposes President Bush's plan for increasing troop levels in Iraq.
But understand the limitations of non-binding resolutions, such as this one from November 2005, which are supposed to indicate where the majority in Congress stands and, in this case, send a strong signal to Bush. Does Bush understand signals or pay attention to them?
Unlike the House vote, the Senate couldn't even get pass the debate stage.
The media reports are focusing on Republican Senate heroes and strength and Democratic Senate shortcomings. So the Democrats appear to have gone from wait until 2006 to wait until 2008. The Congress throws up a bunch of non-binding resolutions, Americans throw their hands in the air, and everyone waits, which seems a little arrogant---we will have a Democratic president and super majority in 2008. Sure.
Meanwhile, Steve Clemons is selling Hagel again.
Hagel:
Conservative Voting Records . . .
Senator Hagel has one of the most solid conservative voting records in the U.S. Senate. The following are his lifetime ratings from some important organizations:
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) 94% (2000 - 2004)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce 96% (1997 - 2004)
American Conservative Union (ACU) 87% (1997 - 2004)
National Taxpayers Union 78% (1999 - 2004)
National Right to Life Committee 94% (2000 - 2004)
Year Hagel's Support of President Bush's Priorities in the Senate
2005 89%
2004 94%
2003 98%
2002 98%
2001 96%
Source: Congressional Quarterly, January 2006
link
Hagel
Hagel (demonstrates his mastery of the art of Republican rhetoric):
Transcript: Sen. Chuck Hagel on 'FOX News Sunday'
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Senator, welcome to "FOX News Sunday."Snip...
<...>
WALLACE: But you have said that you think that we should begin pulling troops out within six months.
HAGEL: I do.
<...>
WALLACE: Snip...
You've been very critical, as we've just heard, of U.S. policy in Iraq. And you have problems with NSA wiretaps and parts of the Patriot Act. When it comes to national security, are you closer to John Kerry than you are to George W. Bush?
HAGEL: Chris, I'm going to go back to the comment I made earlier. When it comes to war, Americans dying in a war, national security, it should never be held captive to a political agenda. I think that's wrong. I've said it's wrong.
Snip...
WALLACE: Would you agree that Ned Lamont's positions on all these issues we've discussed today are closer to yours than Joe Lieberman's are?
HAGEL: No. That's — Ned Lamont's position on issues...
WALLACE: On Iraq, on...
HAGEL: ... all the issues...
WALLACE: ... on the Patriot Act, on NSA warrantless wiretaps?
HAGEL: Those are some issues. But when you're...
WALLACE: Pretty big issues.
HAGEL: But we also have a lot of other issues like pro-life, like tax policy, like spending policy. See, that's my point, too, Chris. Being a United States Senator is more than just talking about Iraq.
And no, I'm not very close to Lamont on the whole scope of issues. He's a liberal Democrat.
more...
link
Republicans up for reelection in 2008 -- 21:
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN)
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Coleman, Norm (R-MN)
Collins, Susan M. (R-ME)
Cornyn, John (R-TX)
Craig, Larry E. (R-ID)
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)
Domenici, Pete V. (R-NM)
Enzi, Michael B. (R-WY)
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Inhofe, James M. (R-OK)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Smith, Gordon H. (R-OR)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Sununu, John E. (R-NH)
Warner, John (R-VA)
Iraq is a mess and the Americans know this.
Americans oppose the surge (63%), believe it will not stabilize Iraq (64%), and most important, believe the war is a hopeless cause (56%).
Don't wait for an invitation, hold Congress accountable now. Put the pressure on. These Senators will listen to their constituents. If they don't, there could be a repeat of 2006. But waiting is not an option because people are dying.