A Pelosian Choice
George Will takes a look at the complete lack of decisiveness and courage in the Murtha-Pelosi strategy to try to defund the war by stealth means. Nobody in America is going to buy that the "readiness restrictions" is anything more than a slow bleed strategy because the unindicted Abscam co-conspirator, Murtha, openly called it what it is in an interview.
Regarding Iraq, the Democratic-controlled Congress could do what Democrats say a Democratic president would do: withdraw U.S. forces. A president could simply order that; Congress could defund military operations in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are, however, afraid to do that because they lack the courage of their (professed) conviction that Iraq would be made tranquil by withdrawal of U.S. forces.
So they aim to hamstring the president with restrictions on the use of the military. The restrictions ostensibly are concerned with preparedness but actually are designed to prevent deployments to Iraq.
Last Saturday, Senate Republicans blocked a vote on a resolution disapproving the president's policy because Democrats would not permit a vote on a resolution stating that the Senate will not cut off funds for troops in the field. That resolution would have committed the Senate to not taking the path that many Democrats already are tiptoeing down.
Suppose Democrats write their restrictions on the use of forces into legislation that funds the war. And suppose the president signs the legislation but ignores the restrictions, calling them unconstitutional usurpations of his powers as commander in chief. What could Democrats do? Cross First Street NE and ask the Supreme Court to compel the president to acquiesce in congressional micromanagement of a war? The court probably would refuse to get involved on the grounds that this is a "political question."
Will points out that no matter how they try to dance around here, the Democrats will get a lion's share of the blame for a defeat if they force the issue and defund the war. They will get the same blame if they do it by stealth means. They cannot dodge this one - all they can do is look actually worse by following the Murtha doctrine. Will calls that a Hobson's choice. I think that the term Pelosian choice fits even better. The Democrats were voted in promising change. Pelosi is delivering more of the same or even worse. The voters will remember that.
By Gayle Miller, Thursday, 22 February , 2007 @ 10:49 am
George Will (with whom I frequently disagree) hits the nail squarely on the head with this article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. And thanks for all the other brilliant writing at your site. I have blogrolled you for good reason!
By cfaller96, Thursday, 22 February , 2007 @ 11:41 am
gaius said:
Nobody in America is going to buy that the “readiness restrictions” is anything more than a slow bleed strategy
Wait a minute- why? Do you really think the American people are going to get angry at Dems because they want the troops to rotate off duty from the Iraq War for a year, as opposed to six months or less presumed by the Bush Administration? Do you really think the American people are going to get angry at Dems because they want the troops to have the proper armor before they go into the Iraq War theater, as opposed to ‘going in with the army you have’ presumed by the Bush Administration?
…
Father Dem: “Son, you can drive the car, as long as you put enough gas into it to get back home.”
George Bush: “You don’t support the car!”
Father Dem: “Huh? No, look, it doesn’t make sense to let you drive around the car if you’re just going to strand somewhere, because then I’ll have to call a tow truck.”
George Bush: “This is just a ’slow-bleed’ strategy designed to give yourself more political power! I’m the Decider, so give me the car, dammit!
…
These are real people, not just pawns on the chessboard. What I don’t understand is how someone can have a problem with requiring our troops to get the proper time off, and the proper armor for when they go back in. What is wrong with that, regardless of who proposes it? Who cares if Murtha is behind it- if Chuckles the Clown introduced this legislation, I’d still think it was a good idea.
If those reasonable requirements (which should have been put in a long time ago) are too onerous for the “surge,” then perhaps we need to reevaluate what is truly possible in Iraq, as opposed to merely wanted in Iraq.