NYT::
“It’s not at all clear that we can reach consensus on the military questions,” one member of the commission said late last week.
The draft report, according to those who have seen it, seems to link American withdrawal to the performance of the Iraqi military, as President Bush has done. But details of the performance benchmarks, which were described as not specific, could not be obtained, and it is this section of the report that is most likely to be revised.
While the commission is scheduled to meet here for two days this week, officials say the session may be extended if members have trouble reaching consensus.
It's hard to reach a consensus when there are no good alternatives. No one wants to endorse a bad solution, but they're all we have left.
So why are Democrats waiting for this report before announcing any detailed alternatives of their own?
I was intrigued by this bit deep in the NYT story:
But privately, administration officials seem deeply concerned about the weight of the findings of the Baker-Hamilton commission.
“I think there is fear that anything they say will seem like they are etched in stone tablets,” said a senior American diplomat. “It’s going to be hard for the president to argue that a group this distinguished, and this bipartisan, has got it wrong.”
Well, maybe -- the president hasn't had any trouble saying that distinguished groups have got things wrong in the past: in fact, the only time any group seems to "get things right" is when they agree with the president.
But clearly, this report is going to put the president at odds with the commission in some regards. While, as Sanger points out in his NYT piece, "Administration officials appear to be taking steps that will enable them to declare that they are already implementing parts of the Baker-Hamilton report, even before its release," there are going to be parts that they can't stomach. Either that, or the commission will water down those aspects of the report to get in line with what the president wants.
And herein lies an opportunity for the Democrats, both a political opportunity and an opportunity to start saving lives in Iraq.
If the commission does not put strict and imminent timetables on withdrawals, the Democrats have a chance to make their case directly to the American people. Very shortly after the Baker-Hamilton report comes out, the Democratic Leadership should all stand together on a stage in front of a backdrop reading Home By Christmas, and one of them should say this:
The newly elected Democratic majority waited for the Baker-Hamilton report out of respect and hope: respect for the members of the commission, and hope that they could find a solution to ending this egregious, mistaken, and dishonest war. While that commission debated, members of the Democratic caucus debated as well. Our discussions were serious, difficult, and at times, divisive, but while the Baker-Hamilton group has presented the country with another version of stay the course, the Democrats have come up with a real way to end the war.
Our way calls for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq by Christmas of 2007, with the first wave of withdrawals beginning this month. A slow but steady decrease in US force will allow the Iraqi people and government time to adjust to life without us, and will provide our soldiers and their families with the hope that this ill-advised war will soon be over.
Our way recognizes the obligation we have to the Iraqi people. While the administration never planned for a post-war occupation, our way will be to significantly fund a crash program to restore essential services, to train Iraqi security forces, to assist the Iraqi government in setting up bureaucratic and diplomatic infrastructure, and to feed, clothe, treat, and house returning refugees.
Most significantly, and this was our most difficult decision, our way calls for enforcing this plan the only way we're able -- by cutting off funding for the war.
We know that many of you have serious moral misgivings about taking this step. We share those misgivings. But we cannot see any other way to hold this administration accountable to the will of the American people and the good of the US forces serving so bravely in Iraq. Time after time, the Bush White House has demonstrated an unwillingness to change course or policy in Iraq. Time after time, we've been promised that some mythical corner is being turned. Time after time, we've been assured by administration officials that the next six months are crucial. Time after time, the administration has refused to set benchmarks for progress. And all this time, the violence in Iraq is increasing, and today our soldiers, sailors, and marines find themselves standing in the middle of a civil war. There is no military solution to this intractable problem.
Pretty soon, you'll hear the White House, and possibly some Republicans in Congress and the Senate, and they'll tell you Democrats are cutting off funds for the troops. This is not true.
In fact, our way calls for increasing funds for the troops. As always happens in wars, especially misguided wars with unclear objectives, many soldiers are suffering the effects of their traumatic experiences. We will increase VA funding for emotional and psychological counseling and treatment to help our returning veterans and their families re-enter American life. During this long war, which has now lasted longer than our participation in World War II, many veterans and their families have suffered dire financial hardships, including depleted savings, ruined credit, and even the loss of their homes. We will pass the Iraq Veterans Assistance Program, which will provide returning veterans with funds for reintegrating themselves and their families into American economic life. The program will also provide veterans with credit assistance, federally subsidized low-interest mortgage loans, and interest-free student loans to supplement the GI Bill if they want to go to college. During this terrible war, in large part because this administration failed to properly equip and armor the troops, many soldiers, sailors and marines have suffered severe and life-long injuries. In response, the administration and the former Republican Congress repeatedly cut veterans benefits for rehabilitation and recovery. We will not only restore but increase these funds, not just for treatment and therapy, but to provide our wounded veterans with assistance to modify their homes or cars, if necessary, to assist them in finding employment, and to assist them with health insurance premiums throughout their long roads ahead.
We are not cutting off funds for the troops. We are increasing funds for the troops, and we can do so at a fraction of what it costs to continue to occupy Iraq. Our troops have served bravely under incredibly difficult circumstances, and we owe them and their families whatever assistance we can provide when they return. I'll say it one more time -- we are not cutting off funds for the troops.
We're cutting off funds for the war. What's more, we're giving the administration plenty of time to prepare for this. Funding for this war will end on New Year's Eve, 2007. If there are still soldiers there after that point, it's the fault of the White House and the Pentagon. They will bear the blame for unfunded soldiers. They will be the ones leaving our troops behind. If the administration cannot responsibly and competently withdraw our soldiers over the next year, the Congress stands ready to pass laws that detail the rate of withdrawal. We can take the matter in hand, if the president cannot.
Our way enables America to begin to restore its lost credibility in the world. Our way gets our soldiers home as quickly as we responsibly can. Our way gives the Iraqis the opportunity to begin to take responsibility for their own future. Our way stops the reckless and corrupt and seemingly endless spending on this war. Our way saves lives.
Their way is more of the same, and that's not what you voted for in November.
It will not be easy to pass this legislation. While we are confident that we have a majority needed to pass it, the president still wields the veto pen, and he has shown repeatedly that he has no interest in or willingness to withdraw our troops from his misbegotten war. We urge you, the American people, to support our plan by calling, writing, and emailing your representatives and Senators and demanding that they vote for this plan.
We heard the message from the voters in November loud and clear. You want this war to end, and so do we. Join with us to help us end this war.
That takes about seven minutes to say, even at a stately pace. You think Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or some other big-name Democrat couldn't get seven minutes of prime-time air to make that speech, to make that case?
An announcement like this would do several things: first, Home By Christmas would stick in people's minds; second, the plan would set a clear timetable for withdrawal while still being "responsible," what with the promise of more money to achieve political solutions to the problems in Iraq; third, with the promise of money and programs for the returning troops, it would blunt the charge that Democrats are abandoning the troops by cutting war funding; fourth, it would force the president to take a position on the resolution, and whichever way he goes, Democrats win -- either he supports the resolution, Republicans come along (what choice will they have?), and the war is over by December '07, or he goes against it and forces Senate and Congressional Republicans to make a choice: do they stand with the president, or do they stand with the troops?
Now, there are obviously unpleasant scenarios that could arise: Democrats could lose the vote on this, what with people like Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson, et al, and all those "conservative" House Dems voting against the plan.
But take a look at this list: Lamar Alexander, Wayne Allard, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Elizabeth Dole, Pete Dominici, Pat Roberts, Gordon Smith, John Sununu, John Warner.
What do those names have in common? They're all Republican Senators from states that elected Democrats to major offices in November 2006, and they're all up for re-election in 2008. Do you think any of these guys want to campaign with a vote against ending the war around their necks? Hell, you can even add Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel to that list. (I know some of these Senators -- Dominici, Hagel, Warner -- may retire, but that doesn't make things any easier for their replacements.)
Now look at this list: Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Mark Pryor, John Rockefeller.
These are all Democrats who have . . . how to put it? . . . variously wobbly records on voting with their party on national security issues, and they're all up for re-election in 2008. The party bosses and the netroots need to make quite clear that there will be significant consequences for bucking the party on this vote: these people need to be made to understand that their states are not Connecticut, and they won't be able to run as "independents" in places where the Republicans will have a choice rather than supporting them.
It's time to get serious, and it's time to get heavy. This is what the voters sent Democrats to Washington to do: to end this war in the most responsibly expedient way possible.
I know that more Americans and Iraqis will die between now and Christmas, 2007. I know that we'll essentially be supporting an Islamic regime that has no intention of participating in anything like "Democracy" after we're gone. I know that the administration is so incompetent that they'll surely screw up the withdrawal as surely as they've screwed up everything else. I know this isn't a perfect plan. But it's a pragmatic, sensible, and meaningful plan, one that looks forward, and accomplishes what can be accomplished with the mess that's been handed us.
And believe me, it has been handed to us. If this war is still going on in 2008, Democrats will be blamed for it, unless we do everything we can to show the American people that we tried to end it, and that the way to ensure we end it is to elect even more Democrats in 2008. Waiting around for other people to come up with solutions, hoping that the situation improves, hoping that the administration will withdraw the troops on their own, hoping that some open-ended four-to-six month solution will get the job done: none of this is going to cut it. The American voters have sent the Democrats to Washington to take this war and this president in hand.
Anything else will be a moral and a political failure, and we will be judged for it.