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.