Iowa Republicans on the war

Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)

Yes ..........54 percent
No ...........37 percent
Undecided .....9 percent

(600 GOP LVs, May 18-20, MoE +/- 4%, polled by Strategic Vision)

(LV: likely voter.) Via Jonathan Singer ("MyDD"), who says Strategic Vision is a Republican polling outfit.

I guess there had to be numbers like this somewhere judging by the overwhelming national opposition to the war, but still: wow. I think if you're undecided about a 6 month time frame, I'm guessing it's likelier you can be had for 12 than that you're going to fuss about Democrats holding firm for a timeline. That puts going on two thirds of Iowa Republicans in the Democratic ballpark -- at least, what I thought was the Democratic ballpark.

Not that the partisan calculations ought to be the main thing here, but the Democratic leadership isn't just failing their own party right now, they're letting down much of the rest of the country as well. As they say, nature abhors a vacuum; if Ron Paul catches an updraft, or Hagel or Bloomberg enter the race, we might have Democrats like Clinton, Biden, and maybe even Obama getting flanked on their left by a Republican.

Up through maybe a couple of weeks or so ago I sometimes allowed myself to think we might be seeing the destruction of the GOP as a political force. Of course, that would require an effective opposing party.


=====
UPDATE, 5/24: More by Singer on the Iowa poll data. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 PM -- |    

 
"The only things truly compromised"
Keith Olberman, on the looming Democratic capitulation to Bush's demand for more money for Iraq:

Few men or women elected in our history, whether executive or legislative, state or national, have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious or instructions more clear: "get us out of Iraq." [...]



The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the administration in which the only things truly compromised are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave and doomed friends and family in Iraq.

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions -- "stop the war" -- have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you for a handful of magic beans.

Via The Editors of The Poor Man Institute, who add "Vote it down." Elsewhere:

digby ("Hullabaloo"):

No Democrat who backs Bush will get the presidential nomination and a good many Representatives and Senators who do may find themselves in an unwelcome primary fight. I hope they all make very sure they really want to throw in their lot with the Republicans to protect their right flank. They probably ought to start thinking about covering their left.

Steve Benen ("The Carpetbagger Report"):

By all indications, this is a big mistake, and gives Bush a spending bill he’ll sign with a smirk. Dems went into this holding practically all the cards — public support, power of the purse, a relatively united caucus, and reality. Then they folded.

Think Progress (Center for American Progress):

Congressional leaders need to live up to their word and continue to fight for a change of course in Iraq. We’ve laid out four possible courses of action for them to take.

But in the meantime, anyone who supports accountability for President Bush’s Iraq policy must reject this blank check for war.

Avedon Carol ("The Sideshow"):

Please, please call them and tell them not to give Bush another blank check. There is no upside to passing it, and no downside in killing it. Pass good bills and make Bush veto them; he's the one who loses when he does that. (Anyway, back when the idea of cutting off funding was first being talked about, didn't the White House say they didn't need it because, "There's already money in the pipeline"?) The public is getting wise to this guy - they know that if Bush vetoes funding, it's Bush vetoing funding.

=====
UPDATE, 5/24: A contrary view from publius ( "Obsidian Wings"), who says Bush has won a "Pyrrhic victory":

"The only way to end the war is to put political pressure on the Republicans and/or expand the Democratic majority. Accordingly, the reason the Democrats’ efforts should be seen as a success is because they drew very clear distinctions between the parties on Iraq. [...] Sure, in some sense, Bush “won,” but what exactly did he win? He successfully obtained blanket authority for endless, escalating war – the one issue that cost the GOP Congress and will likely cost them more in 2008."

I.e., ...exactly what he wanted and we didn't. I wouldn't call that a "win," I'd call it a win. Still, publius might almost be persuasive, if it weren't for a NY Times article (via TPM's Greg Sargent) suggesting what Democrats were worrying about was... being criticized for taking a Memorial Day recess. Maybe publius feels this proves his point -- "If you disagree, I think you have to make the case that Dems would win a game of chicken." -- because this article shows all too obviously they couldn't. The real concern is that at this rate they never will. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:08:00 AM -- |    

 
"What kind of democracy is this?"
On Mother's Day, Boston University professor, retired Army officer, Viet Nam war veteran, and conservative Iraq war critic Andrew Bacevich and his family lost a son and a brother, First Lieutenant Andrew Bacevich, to a bomb attack in Iraq.

Today on NPR, Bacevich had this to say about his son and about democracy in the United States in an interview with Fred Thys of WBUR:

And my son goes to Iraq in 2006, when -- at least it's apparent to me -- that this war is not going to be won, and is probably headed for some dismal conclusion. So our kinship was that we... he and I... had a knack for picking the wrong war in which to serve. [...]

You know one of the things that I've been... really struggling with over the last several days is to try understand my responsibility for my own son's death. [...]

What kind of democracy is this when the people do speak and the people's voice is unambiguous... but nothing happens?

Our kind -- the people versus the media versus our elected representatives:

• The people: Responding to a May 15/16 Fox News poll question about how Americans would vote if they were in Congress, the largest group (39%) favored a specific deadline for withdrawal, the next largest (32%) favored benchmarks, and less than one quarter (24%) favored the "give surge time to work" option (MoE +/- 3%); a May 5 CNN News poll showed 65% opposed the Iraq war and 34% supported it.

• The media: But at the Washington Post and elsewhere, "bipartisanship" -- meaning war opponents give, Bush takes -- seems to be the only measure of wisdom. David Ignatius describes yet another plan -- apparently loosely based on the Iraq Study Group proposal, with bullet points and everything -- for once the surge proves to be just as ineffective as every other Iraq strategy has so far. Ignatius concludes:

  The wild cards in this new effort to craft a bipartisan Iraq policy are the Republican and Democratic leaders, President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They both say they want a sustainable, effective Iraq policy, but each is deeply entrenched in a partisan version of what that policy should be. America is in a nosedive in Iraq. Can these two leaders share the controls enough that Iraq will become a U.S. project, rather than George Bush's war? There's a bipartisan path out of this impasse, but will America's leaders be wise enough to take it?
  

That makes it sound like the whole point of electing people to Congress is so some of them will be judged "wise" by David Ignatius.

Of course we expect representatives to exercise their best judgment on issues of the day; we vote once every two years, they represent us thereafter for two years. But when they know they were elected to change the course of a country's affairs, they ignore the wisdom of the voters who elected them at their own electoral peril, and usually -- as in this case -- to the peril of the country and those who serve it as well. And thus the final bullet point on the state of our democracy:

• Our elected representatives: Dems plan Iraq bill minus timeline but with benchmarks (CNN's Dana Bash, Andrea Koppel, Deirdre Walsh):
  

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will present a plan to House Democrats for a war funding bill that won't include a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but will feature benchmarks with consequences, according to Democratic leadership aides. [...]

Leadership aides said the benchmarks would be tied to Iraq reconstruction aid and would require President Bush to present to Congress numerous reports before August.

They said Democrats won't give up on a deadline for pulling troops out of Iraq, hoping to write language into defense appropriations and defense authorization bills over the summer.

Recapping what seem like the main points to me: funding and death through September (the fiscal year, I take it) for a counterproductive war the vast majority of the American people oppose, with benchmarks that may have consequences only for Iraqi reconstruction -- not for bringing troops home.

Not a job well done, Democrats. You blinked again. Come September, I think Greg Sargent is right: either Republicans rally round Bush yet again, and the war continues, or they don't -- and then may deserve what "credit" remains for finally ending this misbegotten war.

And meanwhile fathers and mothers will continue to ask themselves what they might have done to save their sons and daughters. And the death toll will mount.


=====
NOTES: Lt. Bacevich item by WPRI, Providence. Poll results via PollingReport.com. I also want to highlight comments by 1st Lieutenant Bacevich's sisters, who said in the NPR story that he deserves to be remembered in his own right as a "fantastic human being," not just as a tragic footnote to his father's opposition to the war.
UPDATE, 5/22: Sam Rosenfeld has similar comments about Ignatius, as do many other bloggers. posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:00:00 PM -- |    

 
Dear MSNBC: add a "hell, yes" button next time
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

Currently the utterly nonscientific but enjoyable MSNBC poll is running at 88% for "Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial."

Actually, they may justify extradition. But I'm trying to get with the program and be more bipartisan and moderate, so I'm going to just stick with little old impeachment for now.

Via SilentPatriot ("Crooks and Liars")

UPDATE, immediate: Sure, let's warm up with Gonzales. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:47:00 PM -- |    

 
Van Hollen disappoints on Iran
Last Wednesday evening, my representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD-8) joined a minority of his own party but a nearly unanimous GOP bloc in sending the DeFazio amendment to the House Defense Appropriations bill (HR 1585) to defeat, 286-134, with 12 abstentions. From the brief debate as published in the Congressional Record, here's the full text in full of that amendment:

SEC. 12X. REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAN.

(a) Rule of Construction.--No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran.

(b) Requirements.--Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, no funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the use of military force against Iran unless the President receives authorization from Congress prior to initiating the use of military force against Iran.

As Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4) pointed out in his remarks,

This simply restates the Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Act. It is law, 93–148, and article I, section 8, of the Constitution. This is not about whether or not military action against Iran is wise or necessary. Regardless of how you come down on that question, I urge you to support the amendment. It is not about binding the President’s hands so he couldn’t retaliate if they are involved in attacking our troops or capturing our troops in the area. It allows, as does the War Powers Act, in the event of any attack by Iran on the United States, its territories or possessions or Armed Forces, it is fully within the President’s purview to respond.

(Links added.) Rising in opposition was presidential candidate Duncan Hunter (R-CA-52), who said too late! we already are at war:

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. We have been at war with the radical Islamic jihadists ever since they supported and fomented that storming of our embassy in 1979. They held Americans hostage and they held them for 444 days, and every President since President Carter has renewed the national emergency with respect to Iran, most recently on March 8 of this year.

If you look at the War Powers Act, Mr. Chairman, it states that a national emergency does justify the President utilizing his constitutional powers as Commander in Chief. My reading of this amendment is that this proposal, this amendment, changes the War Powers Act and extracts that power from the President of the United States. We have had Democrat and Republican Presidents renewing that finding and that national emergency status with respect to Iran.

Hunter -- one of the worst of the yahoos ("even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: Get the information") in last week's Republican presidential debate -- went on to recite the meaningless claim that some of the expertise and materials for IEDs in Iraq "are being transferred from Iran." So is some of the airborne dust in Iraq, that doesn't prove Tehran is behind it.

Yet Hunter's arguments seem to have prevailed with Van Hollen -- chair of the DCCC -- and all too many of his Democratic colleagues. Nell Lancaster notes netroots faves Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak and Carol Shea-Porter among their number as well. Curiously, Nancy Pelosi is nowhere to be found on the roll call, not even under abstentions. Almost more curiously, frequent local bete noire Democrat Al Wynn is among the abstentions; along with his cosponsorship of Kucinich's Cheney impeachment bill, Wynn is arguably more "progressive" of late than Van Hollen. Few things concentrate the political mind more than a healthy electoral scare, I guess.

This was a pitiful abdication of legitimate Congressional powers to a President who really doesn't need any more encouragement to go off half-cocked. Between this and similar moves during the runup to the late lamented Iraq supplemental, Congress has all but signalled "go ahead if you want" when a war with Iran would be -- what's the phrase I'm looking for -- a fricking catastrophe that would make Iraq look like a picnic in the park.

The DeFazio amendment may not have had much of a chance for all I know, but that shouldn't have mattered. While I've generally sung his praises here in this little blog of mine, this time I think Van Hollen really screwed up badly, and he should hear about it.



=====
NOTES: Links within DeFazio's statement lead to FindLaw's discussion of Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Yale University Avalon Project discussion of the War Powers Act, the Wikipedia discussion of the same, and the text of 50 USC 1541, where the War Powers Act is found in the United States Code. "Worst of the yahoos": New York Times transcript of the disgusting Republican debate in South Carolina last week, via Roy Edroso, whose precis of that debate is hilarious and indispensable.

UPDATE, 8/20: A belated note, here for starters, that Rep. Van Hollen responded by e-mail a couple of weeks ago to a protest e-mail of my own about this. Key quote: "I am, however, somewhat wary of passing legislation that says the President may not violate the Constitution with respect to one country (such as Iran), because singling out one country only could lead to the false impression that the Congress would countenance unauthorized and unconstitutional military actions against another country (such as Syria)." That seems pretty weak to me; by that token, passing a law specifically penalizing the murder of, say, DEA agents could lead to the impression Congress countenances the murder of mailmen. posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:15:00 PM -- |