Dear Democrats: Flip the script, re-endorse the surge

George Bush's address to the nation last night was so typically disgraceful -- loaded, as all his addresses are, with half-truths, lies and distortions -- comment would be typically redundant. So I'll pass, noting merely its lone distinguishing mark: the spectacle of a president of the United States hiding behind the apron of his top military commander. A new low in disgrace.

Let's move on instead to those who are presumed the adults in this charade: the Democratic majority in Congress. No matter how low the president goes, in both disgracefulness and public approval, that majority is still burdened with the Herculean task of out-maneuvering a commander in chief with a sizable and veto-proof congressional minority at his side.

So where do Democrats go from here? That's the 20-brigade, 10-billion-dollars-a-month question.

So far, the leadership's proposals are as typically meek as the president is disgraceful. Reports the New York Times: "They have been exploring the idea of making the withdrawal more of an objective than a requirement in order to attract Republican votes." In short, do nothing.

Also, "Democrats have been picking up new Republican support for a measure that requires troops to spend at least the same amount of time at their home bases as they did in Iraq before returning -- a requirement that could reduce troop numbers because the Pentagon would not have as many eligible for deployment." "Could" is the key word there, and with only 16 months remaining in Bush's tenure, a legislative battle over 15-month deployments and R&R would do virtually nothing as well.

And that, pretty much, is that. As the Times summarized the opposition's predicament, "The struggle to settle on a party alternative illustrates the problems Democrats are having finding a way to take on the president that unites their party and avoids criticism that they are weak on national security."

Yet there is one legislative possibility that would accomplish both goals, it seems to me, while perhaps even allowing the outside chance of attracting the necessary Republican votes. And the possibility is this: Re-endorse the surge.

But, the endorsement's renewal comes with a condition -- specifically, a six-month condition.

The key to any "way forward" in Iraq, as is stupendously clear and agreed upon by both parties here, is internal political compromise among the various ethnic, sectarian and geographical factions there. Those factions have had four years to get their act together on such nation-preserving provisions as power and oil-revenue sharing, and they've come up short in virtually every category. Odds are, that's precisely how things will remain.

Meanwhile, the full contingent of roughly 160,000 American troops will remain as well. There's simply no way around that reality. But there is a way to attempt to impose a time-limited reality: the congressional establishment of political benchmarks this time around, which will either be met in six months by Iraqi politicians or it's bye-bye American pie.

Forget the debate on the military success of the surge. Tie the debate down to political success and no other. Hammer at it. Demand it, and emphasize that the political is the only facet of this idiotic war worth demanding.

Hence Democrats would merely be endorsing the presently unalterable -- thereby averting the charge they "are weak on national security" -- while uniting their party behind a firm withdrawal date tethered to Iraqi political success alone. They would be hinging it all on the political; the one aspect even congressional Republicans can't deny, and don't.

Should Republicans block the proposal, which they almost surely would, at least Democrats would finally have in hand a firm, simple, identifiable and politically popular position. They can say they tried -- having gone even so far as re-endorsing and extending the surge -- which would please the Milquetoast Dems, and, from a Democratically generated public relations angle, should please even the pro-surge Republicans.

And that's a whole lot more than they've accomplished to date.

Comments

[Realist]

Is this what the sorry level of American governance has descended to? "Anything you can do, I can do quicker?"

If so, this nation is only beginning a tortuous path back to stability, for after the day the end of the war is imposed upon this country by the foreign investors pulling their money out of our war-based economy, these two collections of morons will then struggle over which group of contributors is going to be the beneficiary of their non-existent financial support. Meanwhile the people go under the onerous indentured servitude imposed by bankruptcy "reform."

Just so you remember correctly, the Democratic presidential candidates who voted for that bill include Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, - and Edwards - so there will be no one there to lead the nation when they are needed.

If ever there was a blatant case to demonstrate that the two-party racket is a failure, this is it!

[scarlett]

Perhaps this is the best that we can hope for out of Democrats -- but that is precisely why I am now an independent -- NOT a Democrat. They were given the control in the last election for one reason -- to stop the Iraq war. No one expected them to have the troops home in a week -- but I certainly expected them to do whatever it took to force the President to at least take full responsibility for this mess by vetoing any effort of stopping the war. The risks in trying to stop the war were negligible -- what are the odds that Iraq is going to be moving towards a functioning democracy by the 2008 elections? So how can opposing a disastrous policy be a political liability? We don't need the 30% of people who are clearly insane and think God appointed Bush as president to bring about the second coming of Jesus. If that is who Dems are trying to play to -- they are as low as the Republicans.

I'm not voting for anyone who hasn't tried to stop the war. That leaves me with Kucinich, Gravel or Ron Paul. If none of them are on the ballot -- I'm writing them in. I will not cast a vote for anyone who supports any part of what this president has done to this nation. And whether the Dems like it or not, a LOT of their base (us bleeding heart liberals) feel the same. They are going to find that we aren't going to be scared into voting Democratic by the idea of another Republican administration. What really would be the difference between a Giuliani and Clinton presidency?

The Democratic party, as is, is like a horse with four broken legs. It needs to be put down and put out of its misery. Maybe then a TRULY progressive party will emerge that will, for once, represent the values of those of us who believe in separation of church and state, free speech, responsible foreign policy centered on diplomacy, not pre-emption, even-handedness in Middle Eastern affairs (rather than unconditional support for allies -- even if they happen to have repressive regimes or policies), domestic policy that protects workers and citizens from exploitation by corporations, fair tax policies, affordable health care -- basically all the issues that a strong democracy should possess.

Maybe the coming economic collapse will straighten out our priorities and humble us enough that we can once again be a strong nation.

[Hotrod54235]

Scarlett, Right on the money!!!!!!!!! Lets all pray for an economc collapse. It is the only thing that MAY wake people up. And it will be extremely painful for many as the last Republican Depression was.

[Daniel]

I say up the ante, why do not only call for a full real surge, but why not call them on it to be realistic and call on the past advice of the generals who said we would need a contingent of at least half a million soldiers to win this war. And force them into the uncomfortable position of having to admit in some manner that we have over extended and destroyed our military forces. Why not ask them how we are going to pay for the continued care of our wounded and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have supported us and now find themselves hunted and homeless. Call their bluff. Why not force them into the untenable position of admitting that we would have to ask the american public to tax their grandchildren into the grave, while selling our nations future to the highest bidder, in a bankruptcy sale. All the while the elite 1% sails off into the sunset and live like kings. But again the mass media has been sold off, damn now what do the people do?

[jurassicpork]

All excellent suggestions, PM, and will, of course, be completely ignored. It completely mystifies me why the Democrats are bound and determined to make this sick fucking honeymoon last the full eight years whereas in the real world the honeymoon would last only 6 months.

A so-called president who has less and less cover with every defection, with low approval ratings and no political capital left to spend...

What's with this ongoing deference and playacting that he actually knows what the fuck he's doing and that he can stkill be reached by reason?

The man's a messianic, delusional psychopath, someone who has no business being in the White House even as part of a tour group. Why are we still playing ball with this sociopathic prick even though we own the fucking ball?

I'm almost bereft of answers. Perhaps they know Bush will fuck this up even more until the end of his term and want to be the ones to save the day after 2008. Yes, I'm that cynical of the Democrats. I put nothing past a party that refuses to impeach even with a majority.

Ask yourself, PM: How come we weren't able to stonewall the Republicans in the 109th Congress as successfully as they're able to stonewall us in the 110th?