http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071707R.shtmlForcing the Issue
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist
Tuesday 17 July 2007
'"The Republican leadership has established hurdles and blockades, everything they can find to stop us from a vote that reflects the feelings of the American people. You know why? They're afraid of what the American people want. They're afraid the American people might prevail."
- Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
It was just after 2:00 p.m. Monday afternoon when blogger Bob Geiger broke the story. "Forcing his Republican colleagues to put up or shut up on the notion of an up-or-down vote," wrote Geiger, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) just moments ago announced that he will immediately file a cloture motion on the Reed-Levin troop redeployment bill and, if Republicans follow through with a filibuster, will place the Senate in a prolonged all-night session Tuesday to force a true continuation of debate."
The legislation in question is an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that, among other things, requires the secretary of defense to, "commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act." This amendment, as written, "shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq."
The amendment is notably brief. It contains no military, tactical or logistical plan to facilitate the withdrawal it would mandate. It orders our forces to begin withdrawal within 120 days, with no specifics provided to explain who stays behind and who goes home. It sets April 30, 2008 as a final deadline for what these senators call a "Completion of Transition" that will leave in Iraq a nebulous "limited presence" of military forces. Thus, this amendment falls short of a complete military withdrawal from Iraq.
The mission statement for this "limited presence" is couched in only the vaguest of terms: "1. Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure; 2. Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces; 3. Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations." According to current White House talking points, that's what we're doing in Iraq right now.
Though this amendment is indeed light on details and logistics, its weight is found in another arena. This amendment is the opening gambit in a deadly serious political chess match with both House and Senate on the board, a match that may come to determine the future of this republic. This was one gambit, with more to follow, and if the strategy is true, we may find ourselves bearing witness to a legitimate phenomenon: an administration in checkmate, and a president with no moves left to make.
The Bush administration has displayed absolutely no interest in heeding the wisdom of The First Law of Holes - when you're in a hole, stop digging - even as the circle of carnage widens and public support plummets to new and awe-inspiring lows. The original plan called for the establishment of a permanent American military presence in Iraq, and the bitter-enders in the White House mean to stay this course no matter what comes.
For now, they can do so. Bush and Cheney hold the Executive high ground, their lackeys control the military, and if they don't wish to withdraw from Iraq, any Congressional strategies for withdrawal are meaningless. The administration dictates policy, and they control the military. Further, any withdrawal legislation supported only by the Democratic majority will be undone by Bush's veto pen. No legislative solution can be successfully passed and protected from that veto until 67 senators all vote "Aye."
Before anyone can even begin to craft a plan for extracting us from this disaster, Bush and Cheney will have to be politically cornered, politically overwhelmed, and politically defeated. That defeat must begin in Congress. That is the punch behind the Reid-Levin amendment. That is the punch behind the next amendment to come, and the one after that, and the one after that.
The administration's Iraq policy has almost no public support, and Senate Republicans know it. Their previously unswerving support for Bush and his Iraq policy now hangs ponderously around their necks like Coleridge's albatross. The GOP lost majority control of the Senate by a small margin after last November's elections became the first vividly public repudiation of the war. As bad as that was for Republicans, the potential for greater calamity looms; the approaching November '08 midterm elections could well become an even more strident platform for citizens to vote their disdain.
Thirty-four senators must run for re-election in '08, and 22 of those senators are Republicans. Virtually all of them were gung-ho for invading Iraq, for staying, for surging, for all the rest of the mess, and their voting record bears this out vividly. It will be difficult enough for most of them to win their seats back as it is, given that albatross they must carry with them. The last thing they want to see is legislation mandating timetables for Iraq withdrawal.
Senators Reid and Levin, however, forced the issue on Tuesday. These senators, and the Democratic majority entire, placed a Hobson's Choice before every Republican in the Senate. For those 22 GOP senators, the choice thrust before them by this freighted amendment threatened to damage their chances for victory in those not-so-distant midterms, and worse, could do them serious damage no matter which choice was made.
Simply, those 22 GOP senators could:
Continue to stand with Bush in defiance of overwhelming public opinion, continue to vote against timetables and withdrawal, and face potential defeat at the polls next year; or,
Break with the administration, vote in favor of timetables and withdrawal, become part of a veto-proof coalition, and improve the chance of winning at the polls next year.
If those 22 Republicans fail to heed the public's demands for much longer, the '08 midterms may well see many, most, or all of them defeated at the polls. The current one-vote Democratic majority in the Senate would be vastly increased, and would wield the kind of legislative power not seen in the Senate in many years. Such a muscular majority could dictate terms on Iraq, restoration of habeas corpus, the nomination of new justices to the United States Supreme Court, and those issues are just for starters.
If, on the other hand, enough of those 22 Republicans abandon Bush after facing repeated legislative salvos from the majority, bills mandating withdrawal from Iraq could then be crafted and passed; if the majority's seeming strategy bears fruit, a coalition of 67 senators will be the final result, holding enough votes to override any veto, enough votes to begin legislating an end to this war. The Bush administration would, at long last, be cornered and check-mated.
The showdown on Tuesday placed this choice before the GOP. More legislation is coming that will force the same choice upon them. The elections are coming, the public is not with them, and they are no longer sheltered by the media-inflated approval ratings of Mr. Bush and his war. They will be forced to vote time and again on Iraq, forced to defend their votes, and ultimately forced to campaign on those votes.
The situation is fluid, and nothing is certain, but it is hard to miss the fact that Congressional Republicans are running out of room to maneuver. Reid and Levin, it seems, don't have a problem with that at all.'
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
