http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=273D4E97D6502288BF1B2692E9F6946F?diaryId=195Why Lieberman's Iran Amendment Passed
by: Dave Meyer
Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 15:30:00 PM EDT
Stephen Hadley told Brit Hume yesterday that Bush had enjoyed "a pretty good week" when it came to obstructing Democratic efforts to rein in Iraq. He was right. The converse -- that we had a pretty bad week -- is also true. The debate on Iraq got out of hand, as Democrats pursued too broad a legislative strategy and weren't able to mount the sustained political pressure needed to see it through. In the process, the GOP blocked some important policy, while other legislation -- notably Senator Lieberman's Iran Amendment -- saw light it should never have seen.
The week has some important lessons for us.
First, the administration's "surge of facts" has already begun, and it's likely to be more effective than it should be. The conservative movement retains a large and powerful structural advantage in its ability to inject talking points into national security controversies. Their media are more organized and more effective. The administration's willingness to use the entire might of the executive office to push a single line is still rewarded. Their friends in the establishment media are still willing to take dictation.
snip//
These factors, combined with the still incredibly poor instincts of the Democratic caucus, combine to produce things like the 97-0 vote in favor of Joe Lieberman's Iran Amendment. No one on the Hill or in progressive foreign policy circles seems to have had any idea that the amendment was going to be introduced (although the Weekly Standard got a heads up). A troubling number of people seem to think that the amendment was unimportant, or effectively neutered by Democratic modifications, suggesting a disappointing inability to learn from the Iraq debacle. Democratic Senators -- who voted unanimously for the amendment -- are apparently still enthralled to those pollsters and advisers who think mindless philo-militarism and sabre-rattling help in looking "strong" on national security. They also harbor a baffling credulity when it comes to sources -- like Kevin Bergner and David Petraeus -- that should be subjected to the strictest scrutiny.
Someone in the Democratic caucus needs to stand up and say "stop" when things like the "bipartisan" Lieberman amendment hit the floor. The leadership did not see fit to do it. Nor did any of the Democratic Presidential candidates. Carl Levin endorsed the amendment, signing onto it without any input, after receiving the minimalest of assurances that it wouldn't authorize the use of force.
Had Democrats taken the time to consult with national security experts, they would have learned what they should have already known: that many of the assertions laid out in the amendment were far from settled. The amendment included a collection of cherry-picked quotes from suspect sources, yet was based entirely on the credibility of those sources. Democrats also would have had time to examine the strategic impact of the vote, which will undoubtedly be used to undermine efforts to get out of Iraq. And we would have had time to make our voices heard.