House
Debates Iraq Surge
As Their Popularity Drops
By Kevin Zeese
16 February, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The
House is in the midst of debate over the Iraq War – three days
of debate on the floor of the House of Representatives over whether
the Congress supports the surge. The outcome is pre-ordained –
the House will oppose the surge. The questions are two-fold, first,
how many Republicans will join the Democrats? And, second, what comes
next, will the House threaten continued funding of the war? The Democratic
leadership seems split on this second issue.
The debate comes at a time
when public opposition to the war is hardening and when voters are already
losing confidence in the Democrats. A USA Today poll released on February
12th found that only 30% approve of the way the Democrats in Congress
are handling the war, compared to 27% who approve of the way the Republicans
are handling the war. Perhaps the failure of the Democrats to do anything
real on ending the war, bringing the troops home safely and reflecting
the will of the voters is already weakening their new majority status.
MSNBC reported: “This
is like theater,” said one Democratic House member who opposes
the war but did not want to be identified by name. “People will
get up on the floor and make sententious statements – and then
we’ll walk out of here and we’ll still be in a war.”
“What this means is
we pass the non-binding resolution, yet Congress is not truly exercising
its authority to end this war. The only way Congress can do that is
by cutting off funds,” said Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) who is running
for president as an anti-war candidate. “Once the president gets
the supplemental he’ll have enough money to continue the war to
the very end of his term – and enough money to attack Iran.”
The Republicans were stuck
in a box when the Democrats refused to allow any amendments to House
Concurrent Resolution 63. They were mocked by Dana Milbank of the Washington
Post for the inconsistency of their arguments, on the one hand they
pointed out that the Resolution being debated was non-binding and therefore
a meaningless gesture that would not stop the war. On the other hand
they argued that the Resolution would be catastrophic, it would undermine
the morale of the troops and result in U.S. enemies seeing that the
U.S. is divided.
Other Republicans tried to
avoid a debate on the surge. The New York Times reports “two Republicans,
John Shadegg of Arizona and Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, instructed their
colleagues to make the debate about the fight against terrorism. ‘If
we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current
situation in Iraq, we lose,’ they wrote in a letter.”
While the Democrats trapped
the Republicans, the Democrats are also trapped in their own divisions
over how to handle the continued funding of the war. Speaker Nancy Pelosi
struck a vague if hopeful note saying “Friday's vote will signal
whether the House has heard the American people: No more blank checks
for President Bush on Iraq.”
Foreign Affairs Committee
Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA) promised that passage of the resolution would
be only a first step toward ending what he called “this nightmare”
saying “This simple resolution will establish the first marker.
Those who want to draw down the U.S. presence will be on one side of
that marker. Those who want to take further steps into the quagmire
will be on the other.”
But will there be a real
challenge to the funding of the war, will the Democratic majority use
the “power of the purse” to end the war? There were strong
signals that anti-war voters would be disappointed. Rep. Alcee Hastings
(D-FL), a senior member of the Rules Committee pledged that the resolution
was “not a first step to cut off funding of the troops.”
And, the very powerful Majority Leader Steny Hoyer re-affirmed that
in a briefing for reporters before the Iraq debate started saying, “We’re
going to fund the troops… there will be no de-funding of troops
in the field, no de-funding which will cause any risk to the troops.”
Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) who
chairs the subcommittee on Defense Appropriations is moving toward restricting
funds in the supplemental. This approach seems to be gaining support
among Democrats. The four conditions being considered, according to
the Washington Post, are:
Soldiers and Marines could
be deployed to Iraq only after being certified as fully trained and
equipped.
National Guardsmen and reservists
could be subject to no more than two deployments, or roughly 12 months
of combat duty.
The administration could
use none of the money for permanent bases in Iraq.
And additional funding for
the National Guard and reserves must be spent to retool operations at
home, such as emergency response.
Whether this approach will
get through the appropriations process of both the Senate and House,
and whether it will be effective in moving toward ending the war remains
to be seen. A critical question is, how will the Congress enforce these
restrictions on the president?
Others in the anti-war movement
are urging those in the Senate opposed to the war to use the power of
the filibuster to prevent the supplemental appropriation arguing that
there are 51 Democrats in the Senate and only 41 votes are needed to
sustain a filibuster. The author, John Walsh says “it is time
for the Democrats to start working for the anti-war movement and not
the anti-war movement for the Democrats.”
With their popularity low
in the polls Congressional Democrats should listen to Walsh. If they
fail to follow through and end the war, as the voters want and clearly
said in the last election, they may find themselves paying for their
lack of action.
Kevin Zeese is director of
Democracy Rising (www.DemocracyRising.US) and co-founder of VotersForPeace.US.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights