In an even stronger sense of cognitive dissonance than the one where Ted Koppel says we are at war (see yesterday's H&I Fires) - and one hopes the Democrats are paying attention - when you are the First Female Speaker of the House Ever, and the First Democrat Speaker of the House in over a decade, and this is what you get in a generally friendly venue, the LA Times:
Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi? Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn't micromanage the war. March 12, 2007
AFTER WEEKS OF internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he should.It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It's quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.
This is not to say that Congress has no constitutional leverage — only that it should exercise it responsibly. In a sense, both Bush and the more ardent opponents of the war are right. If a majority in Congress truly believes that the war is not in the national interest, then lawmakers should have the courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding U.S. involvement. They could cut the final checks in six months or so to give Bush time to manage the withdrawal. Or lawmakers could, as some Senate Democrats are proposing, revoke the authority that Congress gave Bush in 2002 to use force against Iraq.
Madame Speaker has other problems. There are other suspicious characters hanging around her home with pitchforks, too. For the record - I think you should leave politicians home's alone, not just because of the family aspect of it, but because even public people deserve some privacy.
I'm with the Times - Pick a position and stick with it. Just be prepared to accept the consequences of it. Something most politicians, regardless of affiliation, are reluctant to do. But quit trying to be on both sides of the issue.
Interestingly, as they dither about whether to drive a stake through the heart of the war in Iraq, they are backing away from telling the President he can't do anything about Iran without their permission. That's actually a step forward. The Blue Dog dems, among others, are schooling their party that domestic political conditions and a burning desire to bring down an opposing administration in flames, and bring it to heel, come hell or high water, isn't neccessarily the best approach when facing the world stage, especially as unsettled as it appears now.
A lesson, mind you, the Republicans who grew up politically in the 90's would do well to heed.
Heh. Even the Washington Post is not supportive of General Pelosi's plan.
In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.
Congress should rigorously monitor the Iraqi government's progress on those benchmarks. By Mr. Bush's own account the purpose of the troop surge in Iraq is to enable political progress. If progress does not occur, the military strategy should be reconsidered. But aggressive oversight is quite different from mandating military steps according to an inflexible timetable conforming to the need to capture votes in Congress or at the 2008 polls. Ms. Pelosi's strategy leads not toward a responsible withdrawal from Iraq but to a constitutional power struggle with Mr. Bush, who has already said he will veto the legislation. Such a struggle would serve the interests of neither the Democrats nor the country.
Read the rest, here.
