| Congressional Democrats and their Republican supporters took action last week to challenge President Bush's authority to escalate the war by calling for a surge of 21,500 troops in Iraq that the President advanced on January 10, 2007. In what has been touted as a bipartisan effort, the Democratic majority in the House passed a resolution on Friday that called for continued support for the troops while strongly disagreeing with President Bush's efforts to send more troops to Iraq. While the Democrats were able to peal off 17 Republicans to support the resolution, the number fell far short of the number that they had initially hoped to get to vote for the resolution. The final vote was 246 for the resolution and 182 against with 6 not voting. To start the debate, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi hailed the vote as a change in direction for the war in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring the troops home. Once the resolution had passed, Pelosi said that President Bush no longer had a "blank check" to pursue the war without oversight from Congress. The last Republican to speak against the measure was Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, a war veteran who warned, "Now it's time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already. We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them." On Saturday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid convened an extraordinary session calling for debate and a vote on the same resolution passed by the House. The Democrats were hoping to get a bipartisan majority of 60 votes in support of the measure but fell short by attaining only 54 with a total of 7 Republicans jumping ship to join them. "Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Carl Levin, Chair of the Armed Services Committee, admonished the Republicans for launching what he said amounted to a filibuster that opted to abandon the support of the troops in an effort to support President Bush. President Bush had little response to the resolution, leaving comments to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow. Snow, in doing the Sunday morning talk show circuit, warned that Congress is gambling on the hope that the President's policies will fail, stating that the Democrats will look foolish if the surge succeeds. Snow was also very critical of proposals that are being advanced by the Democratic Chair of the Armed Services Committee, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, warning that the policies would undermine the President's role as Commander and Chief in managing the war. Murtha has called for changing the focus for the war from combat to support, limiting the tour of duty in hostile areas to one term and not allowing troops to be deployed until they were adequately trained and equipped for battle. Former Republican leader of the House Newt Gingrich has dubbed these actions taken by the Democrats and their Republican supporters as "destructive and irresponsible," suggesting that it will only result in our allies' loss of confidence in our foreign policy and will conversely only serve to inspire our enemies. Gingrich said that the vote on the resolution was not a difficult or meaningful vote. He stated that if the Democrats and their supporters were serious, they would vote to terminate the funding for the war but they did not have the backbone to do this. He admonished that while it is OK to disagree on issues, "politics should end at the water's edge as we should all unite to support the troops and our President." As I pondered what to make of all of this, I was reminded of a book that I read as a freshman in Political Science 101, "Politics, Who Gets What, When and How" by Harold Lasswell. Quite to the contrary of what Gringrich had said, Lasswell teaches that "war IS the continuation of politics by other means." Given that, it is entirely appropriate, if not mandated ,that politicians, the media and the general public take a critical look at who gets what, when and how, why we are in this war, how and whether it makes sense to continue to be involved. " The Republican diversionary strategy reduces any opposition to the run-up to the war, the conducting of the war, or what will happen in its aftermath to cheap, partisan politics. This strategy has further established that, as their chief spokesperson Rush Limbaugh would have it, all critics are reduced to the level of being anti-American, pro-terrorist, not in support of the troops and traitors. Despite the loud and clear anti-war message that the electorate gave to the President and Congress in the mid-term elections, the surge represents a continuation of "staying the course," if not "expanding the course" with this train wreck in Iraq. At his first press conference of the new year last week, Bush chose to emphasize the optimistic assessment of how things were going in Baghdad that he received in a recent telephone call from Prime Minister Al-Maliki (who actually did not support the surge in troops). Similar to what transpired in the run-up to the war, Bush has chosen to use diversionary tactics by changing the subject, making idle threats against Iran for their alleged involvement in the war. When reporters asked for evidence of Iranian involvement, Bush retorted, "Trust me, Iranians are supplying IEDs" (Improvised Explosive Devices). When reporters then asked "Why should we trust you now when we were lied to before about WMDs?" an exasperated Bush had little substance to offer to restore confidence and trust. The resolution passed by the Democrats and their Republican supporters is of more symbolic than substantive importance. Resolutions are political statements that are often used as a framework for policy decisions. What is significant and important about what has transpired here is that this resolution represents the first time that those who were hoodwinked and kowtowed into supporting the war in the politically charged post 9/11 environment, have finally developed the political will and backbone to stand up and acknowledge that Bush and his neo-cons are moving the country in the wrong direction, that Iraq is a quagmire, that the present strategy is wrong, and that, as called for the by the Iraqi Study Group, there needs to be a surge in diplomacy to get other nations involved in ending a civil war. In further pursuit of their diversionary strategy, the Republicans are daring the Democrats to take what is, in their view, the next logical step which is to vote to end, curtail or earmark the use of funds for the war effort in the upcoming vote on Bush's Supplemental Appropriation for the War; and for the war's budget in the 2008 Federal Budget Bill. If things go as the Republicans would prefer, expect to hear more rhetoric about the Democrats being "un-American," "pro-Al-Qaeda," and not in support of the troops. The Democrats and their supporters must not allow themselves to be hoodwinked again by this strategy. The issue is not "Do you, or do you not support the troops." Everyone supports the troops. The issue for them, plainly and simply is, "Do you, or do you not support President Bush's misguided policies that have put the troops in harm's way in a crossfire between warring factions in a no-win situation?" The Democrats must continue to speak up and take action to do what's best for our nation and Iraq and do all that is possible to bring the troops home while moving rapidly to get all parties and nations involved in an aggressive surge in diplomacy. |
| The Literary Divide/Dr. Paul Barrows Bush's "surge" loses steam as Congress reacts |
 |
 |