Republican Senators Warner and Lugar have rolled out a proposal to... well, do something about the war in Iraq. This story in the NY Times, by Jeff Zeleny, doesn't tell you what the Warner-Lugar proposal is until the 15th paragraph. The main part of the story is devoted to retelling the familiar tale of how "politics" and "pandering to the base" is messing up the pursuit of level-headed centrist policies in Iraq. It's lousy reporting and a pretty transparent show of the kind of 'common sense' from the Washington establishment that got us into this whole Iraq debacle in the first place.
Anyway, what's up with the Warner-Lugar proposal? According to the far more informative report in the Washington Post by Shailagh Murray and Robin Wright, the legislation would require "the White House to begin drawing up plans to redeploy U.S. forces from frontline combat to border security and counterterrorism. But the legislation would not force Bush to implement the plans at this point."
That's right--Bush and his team will have to "begin drawing up plans" to redeploy troops to "border security and counterterrorism," but would not force the administration to do anything other than "present a realignment plan to Congress by Oct. 16." Other than that it would "expect" Bush to submit a new request to Congress to reauthorize the war--something that the NY Times story does not go out of its way to make clear is only an expectation, not a requirement.
As a sign of Republican disunity on the Iraq issue, the Warner-Lugar bill is welcome news. But it's not anything close to a reassertion of the Constitutional prerogatives on Congress. It's a toothless piece of legislation, and I expect it to sink fairly quickly, although amid wails and cries from the likes of the NY Times about how it's another sign of the death of bipartisanship. Even if the bill passed, it will basically allow the Bush administration to continue to do whatever the hell it wants, just as long as it redefines it as promoting border security and counterterrorism. It's not a realignment plan at all.
Hopefully, the Dems will come up with something a lot better, and stick with it even if they can't pass it over a filibuster or Presidential veto. Defeat in a righteous cause is better than a 'victory' that allows this evil war to continue.
Update:
Meanwhile, back in Iraq: U.S. Troops Battle Iraqi Police in East Baghdad
Anyway, what's up with the Warner-Lugar proposal? According to the far more informative report in the Washington Post by Shailagh Murray and Robin Wright, the legislation would require "the White House to begin drawing up plans to redeploy U.S. forces from frontline combat to border security and counterterrorism. But the legislation would not force Bush to implement the plans at this point."
That's right--Bush and his team will have to "begin drawing up plans" to redeploy troops to "border security and counterterrorism," but would not force the administration to do anything other than "present a realignment plan to Congress by Oct. 16." Other than that it would "expect" Bush to submit a new request to Congress to reauthorize the war--something that the NY Times story does not go out of its way to make clear is only an expectation, not a requirement.
As a sign of Republican disunity on the Iraq issue, the Warner-Lugar bill is welcome news. But it's not anything close to a reassertion of the Constitutional prerogatives on Congress. It's a toothless piece of legislation, and I expect it to sink fairly quickly, although amid wails and cries from the likes of the NY Times about how it's another sign of the death of bipartisanship. Even if the bill passed, it will basically allow the Bush administration to continue to do whatever the hell it wants, just as long as it redefines it as promoting border security and counterterrorism. It's not a realignment plan at all.
Hopefully, the Dems will come up with something a lot better, and stick with it even if they can't pass it over a filibuster or Presidential veto. Defeat in a righteous cause is better than a 'victory' that allows this evil war to continue.
Update:
Meanwhile, back in Iraq: U.S. Troops Battle Iraqi Police in East Baghdad
1 comment:
The Lugar/Warner plan is warmed over rhetoric from the positions of Russ Feingold and John Murtha in 2005. Back then both Feingold and Murtha were called defeatists. Today, Lugar and Warner are considered grown up centrists.
Bottom line for Iraq now is this: without a political settlement American troops can't do anything good. If there was a political settlement then we would owe it to Iraqi people to stick around after all the grief we caused. But there isn't and there won't be until they understand we're ready to pull out.
Post a Comment