In this BBC News article by James Coomarasamy captures the dilemma of the Democrats who are now in power and have to walk the tightrope between governing the way their base wants them to (impeach Bush and bring the troops home) and the way Independent and Moderates want them to (support the troops, keep them safe but don't loose too many soldiers). And it also captures the essence of who they are and how they govern (they will sling mud but they don't want to actually take responsibility for what they think should be done):
President Bush's decision to send an extra 21,500 troops to Iraq has presented the Democrats with an early reminder of the limits and the potential perils of holding a congressional majority.And then there's this:
For, while they are - with the notable exception of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman - publicly united in their opposition to the president's troop increase, they are still feeling their way towards a unified response.
As the party with the largest number of seats in Congress, they know that there is much more riding on their decisions now than in the past.
And this provides them with a dilemma - how to influence a policy which they believe has failed without assuming ownership of it?
[...]
The Democratic Party may be in power, but its leadership remains vigilant about not appearing weak on national security, as does the cluster of Democratic senators planning to run for the White House in 2008.
Political considerations aside, the idea of the funding cuts may be a moot point.So, now what are they going to use to placate their base and to threaten the president?
According to President Bush - who has been sounding defiant in his recent interviews - the money to deploy the extra forces has already been approved by Congress.
The White House says that the legislators' much-vaunted power of the purse has - in this case, at least - been overstated.
Coomarasamy also states that there are Republicans who are opposed to Bush's Iraqi plan:
Apart from Chuck Hagel - a long-time critic of the president's Iraq policy - previously loyal senators such as Norm Coleman of Minnesota have expressed their unequivocal opposition to the Bush plan.I've been reading this for awhile now and then I heard Coleman on the Hugh Hewitt show and it didn't sound like he was totally opposed to the plan:
Well, we had a resolution today, the Hagel-Biden resolution. It was before the Foreign Relations Committee. It passed with the vote of all the Democrats on the committee and only one Republican, Chuck Hagel. The rest of us voted against Hagel-Biden. I tried to amend it, I tried to add an amendment. And by the way, Hugh, you know that I have expressed concern about the part of the President’s plan, just a part of the President’s plan that talks about a surge in Baghdad. I think the Iraqis, they’ve got to produce, they’ve got to put up, they’ve got to show a resolve to take on al-Sadr, just as much as they take on the insurgents. I’ve had a concern about that. On the other hand, I’ve also talked to the Marines in Anbar who are doing what Marines do very well. They’re killing the enemy. They’re killing the foreign fighters. They’re seizing ground. But to hold it, they need Iraqis, and they need Sunnis in the army there, and Sunnis in the police force. But the commanders in Anbar say that we need more forces and we need more troops. And so I had a resolution that said the Iraqis need to deal with the sectarian violence, but the bottom line of it was that the commanders on the ground in places like Anbar, that are fighting the war against insurgents and foreign fighters, if they need increases, if they need more troops, then we should support them. That was substantially voted down. Bottom line is I voted against the resolution that I think is…I’m going to be very blunt…is a pull-out resolution. This isn’t an abandon Iraq resolution. The words don’t exactly say that, but I listened to John Murtha testify, and I listened to the reaction of my colleagues across the aisle, that’s their position. They talk about redeployment, and redeployment really means get out, regardless of the consequences. I have concerns about a portion of the President’s plan, I have articulated those concerns, but I’m not ready to give up on victory or success in Iraq, Hugh.It sounds more like he would like Iraqi accountability than a complete rejection of the plan.
[...]
HH: Now Senator Coleman, hearing what General Petraeus said, have you rethought support for Senator Warner’s supposed resolution?
NC: Two observations: One, David Petraeus is one of the finest military leaders certainly in my brief time I’ve met, but put me aside. When General Barry McCaffrey came before the Senate, he said that Petraeus is the best, brightest military leader that he’s met in his entire life. So Petraeus is awesome. Hugh, I’m not going to vote for any resolution that communicates to our enemy the prospect of shaken resolve. I don’t think the Warner resolution does that. The Warner resolution does what the Hagel-Biden resolution doesn’t. It talks about the consequences of a failed state. The Warner resolution does what the Hagel-Biden resolution doesn’t. It says nothing in this resolution…should infer pulling out, lessening resolve, et cetera, et cetera. It highlights a disagreement over an aspect of the strategy, it urges the President to consider to look at all options, but I don’t think it does what is the bottom line to me, and that is communicate the prospect of shaken resolve. We have to succeed in Iraq. We have some questions about how we do it. But I think we’ve got to communicate, by the way, not just to the Iraqis, but to the Iranians and the Syrians, the reality that we’re going to be there, that we are going to prevail, and I just don’t think the Warner resolution does what you and many of your listeners, and I appreciate the deep concern, what you are concerned about. I don’t think if you read the resolution, it doesn’t do that, and I’m not going to support a resolution that I believe communicates shaken resolve.
Tags:
