Back in May, I wrote a diary (September arrives. Then what?) about how Congress could have a reasonably coherent strategy that would end the war. Since I am a nobody, my recommendations were ignored as expected. Now looking back at what Congress has done, it's pretty clear to me that the Democratic Congressional leadership has to be one of the most politically inept I've seen in my lifetime.
Here we are, now talking about the Levin bullshit compromise which will do absolutely nothing to end the war. Lets compare what I would have done to what they actually did:
My opening statement back in May:
Gen. Petraeus will return to make his report. The annual Defense Appropriation will come up for a vote. Republicans are looking over the horizon and see election season approaching fast. The war would have went through its most hellish month in the previous August, according to Bush. The Iraqi government will return from vacation.
How can we take advantage of all this to get a bill through that ends the war?
Strategy session. I don't want to lose AGAIN. Let's start using our heads to create a smart political strategy. Let's entertain all ideas. Take off your angry hat and put on your thinking caps.
What would George Mitchell have done? That was what I tried to answer. Mitchell was a Congressional leader who knew how to operate as loyal opposition, and was tremendously effective against the first President Bush. So based on my conjecture about what he would do I recommended the following:
1- Spend the summer educating the public about what would happen if Congress were to cut off funding. This is VERY important. The public does not support cutting off funding because Congress never ran on it. In fact, most candidates promised to do just the opposite of cutting off funding. The public is convinced that cutting off funding means troops will not get the equipment they need. We have to change that. We put the cart before the horse this time. Lets try to get those poll numbers up for cutting off funding BEFORE we try to pass legislation. We should also state clearly, that this should be our weapon of last resort. Essentially, this means getting 11 more votes for Feingold-Reid, which is enough to sustain a filibuster and defeat a cloture motion on any funding bill. We also need to get the McGovern bill to 218, although this maybe less likely. It does not have to pass, but merely support a filibuster. Again, weapon of last resort.
Of course, being Democrats, they did none of that. Reid bungled Feingold-Reid, bringing it up for a vote at a time when it was sure to go down in defeat. Furthermore, instead of spending the Summer going out educating the public on why cutting off funding was the only way to stop the war, instead they collapsed and bought into the whole "wait for Petraeus' report" bullshit. Bush demanded the extra time for the surge, and they gave it to him without any plan for a counter-measure. Which is why they now find themselves flummoxed. The public has not moved one iota on cutting off funding, and now having lost the PR battle to the White House they've given away the one big piece of leverage they had: the power of the purse. Instead of building 41 staunchly Democratic votes for Feingold-Reid, they've done little to nothing.
Next, I recommend this simple, common sense idea:
2- The presidential candidates should be out doing what Sen. Barack Obama is doing: advocating that Republicans, a majority of whom are now against the war, put pressure on their Senators and Congressman to abandon Bush. We simply cannot succeed without a veto override. Thats reality. Anything that ends this war will be vetoed. Only thing we can do is go over his head with a veto proof majority and dare him to start a constitutional crisis. We don't know if this will be completely effective, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to try, considering how many of them are up for re-election next year. Targeting them cannot hurt, AND it keeps Democrats focused on the enemy and not each other. Plus, this immigration fiasco will make it even easier for many Republicans to ditch Bush come September. The elections are looming and we are already seeing cracks, even from McConnell. Hopefully Edwards, Dodd, and the others will see the wisdom of this. Especially Edwards. He could be a great help in putting pressure on Southern Republicans.
Naturally, being Democrats, they did none of this either. Failing to capitalize on the failure of the immigration bill, and the Republican meltdown, they simply turned to attacking each other over the Iraq war. Mainly, the establishment dems focused their guns on Obama, who was putting forth the most rational political position: keep the focus on wavering Congressional Republicans, not each other. Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to form a circular firing squad. So, all Summer, Republicans could simply point the finger at Petraeus over and over again, while the Democrats were pointing at each other and Bush. Once again, the political blundering of the Democratic party continued.
Next I recommended NOT taking the Summer vacation, but instead doing this:
3- Come August, before they take up the Appropriations bill, the Senate should take up Senators Byrd & Clinton's war de-authorization bill. The bill could simply state that the mission of removing Saddam is accomplished, the conflict is over, and we should redeploy our forces out in compliance. This bill is tantamount to Congress asserting its constitutional authority to declare war. If Congress can declare war, certainly it should be able to undeclare it. If this bill passes, it will certainly face a legal challenge by the Administration as to its constitutionality, and thats good. Having Bush having to explain why his authority supersedes that of Congress on declaring war is exactly where the battle should be fought going into September. While the matter will end up in court for years, its important to press this issue as it keeps Bush fighting for his war. It wont get any troops off the ground, but it sets up a sort of debate floor on POLICY rather than money. As long as the debate is about Iraq policy, we are on the winning side. Win or lose, it keeps the debate before the public and on friendly territory.
Once again, rather than having a debate about war policy, we are debating troop levels and the political abilities of the Iraqi government. Instead of spending August ratcheting up the pressure, the Congressional Democrats were largely silent. Keeping Congress in session would have kept Republicans from going back to their districts to point the finger at Petraeus. Instead, they went home and did exactly that.
Finally,
4- September. No matter happens with the Byrd-Clinton bill, Congress should then move on to take up the Defense Appropriation and attach to it exactly the same requirement: a redeployment out of Iraq. At the same time, the Feingold-Reid bill should be introduced. Let Senator Feingold take the lead in threatening to filibuster any bill that funds the war. Hopefully our summer would have been productive and we would have found those 11 votes he needs. This sets up a sort of "Good Guy-Bad Guy" classic strategy on the one hand, and gives Reid a divide and conquer strategy on the other.
Hopefully, over the summer we would have found 11 Republican senators willing to vote for a redeployment with funding. That gives you 60 votes to defeat a GOP filibuster AND 41 votes to stop anything the GOP would want. Now Reid can deal from a position of strength, allowing the House to take the even harder line of the McGovern bill or a "short leash" type of bill they passed earlier.
Congress should hold up the bill until they can find a veto-proof compromise that comes down in favor of a funded "date certain" redeployment out of Iraq. The Majority should cut the White House out of the negotiations and deal exclusively and directly with the GOP in Congress. If no compromise can be reached, let a "clean" bill come to the floor and turn loose Senator Feingold with his filibuster. This is a nuclear option that would force the issue to the brink. ultimately I'd expect enough members of the GOP will want to get on to running for re-election and put this matter behind them. Enough will vote for what will be the "compromise" bill that was recently vetoed.
If all this works out, a veto proof bill will be sent to the president setting a date for ending our involvement in Iraq and providing funding to that effect. When he vetoes it, we override him and make it law.
This would have taken the focus off Gen. Petreaus, and put it where it belonged: Congressional Republicans. The Petreaus testimony would have been run-of-the-mill, rather than a significant event. The big event would be the threat of the Feingold filibuster backed up by a better educated general public. On the other hand would be a "funded date-certain redeployment" bill which Republicans could have been pressured to support. Now, they have no need to support that at all because Petreaus has given them complete cover and the Democrats were forced into a position of attacking his integrity..a sure loser with a pro-military public. The American people have no confidence in Congress or the President, but high confidence in our uniformed warriors.
Basically we blew it again. Beaten by Bush.
Now what? I don't know and i'm really starting not to care. I find myself tuning out and moving on to pro football. It's clear the Democrats have no political strategy for ending the war other than bad mouthing Bush, and now questioning the patriotism of Generals. I think many people are now settling in for another year of war, facing the fact that it will not end while this President is in office and Democrats do not have the smarts to stop it. After the funding debacle this summer, the FISA bill, and the inability to produce any substantive major legislation, i think this Congress is beat.
Now I'm waiting to watch us top this failure off by blowing the 2008 election as well. I would not be shocked at all to see it happen.