After the Veto
Democrats have two big wins under their belt. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid
held tough and Republicans buckled, passing the buck to Bush who all of a sudden
had an attack of spending guilt; this after instituting the most profligate
spending spree since Lyndon Johnson, with one-quarter the affect for Americans.
Anything that suits your own purpose, right Mr. President? You can tell by his
demeanor he does not like having Congress play their constitutional role well.
One word: tough. It\’s only the beginning, because with these Iraq wins the Democrats
have proven to voters that what they were voted in to do has begun. Not only
that, but because the American people are behind the Democrats, wanting a withdrawal
timetable for Iraq, there is much that can be built on in the coming months.
… ..Even so, the votes in the House and Senate have already transcended
the standard incrementalism of legislative work. And it may prepare the way
for even more aggressive challenges to come.Julian E. Zelizer, a historian at Boston University, noted that these votes,
like the early votes on civil rights legislation, were critical to the Congressional
psyche. “Every time you take a vote like this, and you survive, and
there’s no big payback, it encourages you to do more,” he said.
So after Bush\’s inevitable veto, what next? Many people remember Congress playing
chicken with President Clinton back in the 1990s. Clinton didn\’t blink, the
government shut down and Newt Gingrich and the Congress got the blame, which helped bring about Newt\’s downfall. It was
a sobering reminder of the price of brinkmanship. So what to do?
Conservative Democrats also discussed alternatives for providing troop funding,
if the standoff proves to be prolonged. For instance, Reps. Dennis Cardoza
(Calif.) and Mike Ross (Ark.) suggested that the war funding be parceled out
in three-month increments to force Bush to keep coming back for more.
Some more thoughts on all this at Tapped,
Yglesias,
but you can\’t talk about any of these developments or options on Iraq without
bringing in Matt
Bennett\’s \”third-way\” CW, as in conventional wisdom. Hold on…
“If getting out of Iraq defines entirely who the Democrats are on national
security, then over the long run, it will be a disaster,” said Matt
Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic group. Rather, Iraq
needs to be part “of a larger strategy aimed at showing how to protect
America’s national security interests,” he said.
Huh?
Mr. Bennett needs to read up on Iraq. He also needs to enter the 21st century.
You don\’t help American national security by repeating occupation mistakes inside
the Middle East that helped bring on 9/11. If this cold war talking
point is all Bennett can offer, then Third Way options are officially dead,
if they weren\’t already. This goes in the same bad rhetoric file as \”all options are on the table.\” As if any American president would ever take military options \”off the table.\” Sheesh, will these Third Way weenies never learn?
Conditions on any Iraq spending bill must continue. Period. Congress forcing
Bush to come back to get more funds every quarter seems like a good place to
start, because the votes to do anything else are not there and Pelosi and Reid need to build on what they\’ve already won. (To add, there is also the constitutional reality.) Today, one more vote came over to our side. So settle in, it\’s one step out of
Iraq at a time.
Comments are closed.