Sunday, January 14, 2007
The non-binding resolution: Is there collateral damage?
Bill Kristol had this to say on Fox News Sunday this morning:
It is unbelievable to me that the president announces a new strategy -- Democrats are perfectly free to say I'm dubious about it, I'm very worried that this won't work. To actually pass a resolution criticizing it which has no practical policy effects -- they can't change the strategy, they're not trying to -- which purely weakens the U.S. as it implements the strategy, it gives comfort to those who oppose us in Iraq. It really does, that's just the practical effect, and it will dispirit those who are our allies, who will think, "the president is all alone, Congress is going out of its way to pass a non-binding resolution." This isn't an appropriations bill where Congress has to vote up or down, so if you're against the war you should vote to cut funds or limit funds in the future. This is a gratuitous measure to lessen the chances of this strategy working. I really think it's deplorable. And then Joe Biden, who is a respectable fellow -- I've had a reasonably high opinion of him in the past -- he's so upset about the possibility that we might be trying to deter Iran from killing U.S. soldiers and further fomenting civil war in Iraq that he says "it's a constitutional crisis". So the position of the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is if there is a factory one mile across the border that is manufacturing IEDs and sending people across the border to kill Americans, we can't go in and hit it?
Discuss over your Sunday brunch. Think about supplementing with a debate over the following statement: It is ironic that an administration so frequently accused of arrogating too much power to the executive branch seems to have become weaker than any wartime administration in American history.
17 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Jan 14, 11:18:00 AM:
I'm not exactly sure what Kristol would suggest as an alternative for the Democrats. Far as I can tell, the opposition has approximately 4 options:
1) They can voice agreement with the president no matter what he suggests.
2) They can be silent.
3) They can show opposition in symbolic and non-binding ways.
4) They can show opposition in binding ways (e.g., cutting off funds to prevent a surge)
Maybe Kristol would like the Democrats to try #s 1 and 2 - but they are obviously nonstarters (and besides, this was already tried in the earlier stages of the war & now, that initial acquiscence is being used to criticize the Democrats as flip-floppers, etc.)
That leaves us with option 3 - the current one - and the more harsh last option. Who among the various folks who still hunger for a victory in Iraq (rather than a surrender through withdrawal) would be happier if the Democrats moved to that option? Kristol should be careful about what he's really advocating here...
Are there any obvious options that I'm missing?
By , at
Sun Jan 14, 12:20:00 PM:
"Think about supplementing with a debate over the following statement: It is ironic that an administration so frequently accused of arrogating too much power to the executive branch seems to have become weaker than any wartime administration in American history."
I don't find it ironic at all - it just shows that GWB is a clumsy and ineffective leader. If he were a better president, then he'd find ways to get the important parts of his agenda implemented without causing such virulent hate among the opposition, because that's what a good manager/leader does. I think the rest of the Republican party are likewise reaping what they have sewn: by completely marginalizing the Democratic minority during their hold on power, they alienated many moderates by refusing to even attempt building consensus/compromise with the other side. This poor display of management got them kicked out, and now, like the president, they are in a weakened position as a result.
I just hope that the Dems, now that they have the majority, can do better in this regard.
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Sun Jan 14, 12:49:00 PM:
Are you kidding? There was virulent hatred before he was even sworn in. He was a slack jawed idiot who stole the election from the rightful heir to the Clinton throne thanks to an evil conspiracy fomented by his brother's minions in Florida. He's faced nothing but opposition from the Democrats since he took office.
As for the irony; he isn't really a 'wartime' president. This isn't a war. If it were, you'd have to consider Clinton (Serbia), and McKinley, Roosevelt I, and Taft (Phillipino Insurgency) war presidents and marvel that they didn't have the same level of power and control as Lincoln or Roosevelt II. Those conflicts were localized and did not require full mobilization, so there wasn't really a need for special wartime powers. (which are justified in part by full declarations of war)
I do think, however, that abject and conspicuous failure of the Bush administration (haha) to even try to take these kinds of powers pretty much evaporates the 'evil police state' hypothesis, which is why I ignore those people.
By , at
Sun Jan 14, 01:13:00 PM:
DF82: I agree that GWB certainly was hated at the start of his term, so while he perhaps didn't earn or cause the hatred he started out with, he's still clumsy and ineffective because he couldn't find a way to bridge over these divisions.
Imagine a CEO who takes over a company headed by a bitterly divided board of directors/management. If that CEO doesn't build consensus/compromise with his opposition, he's a failure, and will have his ability to implement his plans hampered at every turn. Just because GWB started with a bad situation doesn't excuse him at all, because it is his job to find a way to unite the country in difficult times.
Further, I don't believe that the deck was totally stacked against GWB. He started out with broad bipartisan support during the invasion of Afghanistan, which he systematically squandered thereafter.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Jan 14, 02:46:00 PM:
Howard in Boston, a fifth possibility would be "publicly discuss the issue, giving credit where it's due and disagreeing where you think you have a better idea." The fact that this possibility didn't occur to you, or the Democrats, speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Phrizz, Democratic Senators were back in attack mode by February 2002. Bush didn't squander their support - they blew with the wind while it was overwhelmingly popular, then immediately reverted to form. Campaigning against Republicans has been more important than protecting the country. Not that they care nothing at all for protecting the country - I'm sure they would prefer it - but they have been unable to resist the temptation to undermine our foreign policy at every chance. Bush should have found a way, you say. Magic Wand?
The Democratic minority were not "completely marginalized" during Republican majority in the congress. They claimed it repeatedly, but so what? What did you expect them to say? And you believe them why, exactly?
The Democrats ruled congress for decades, believed it was their natural right, and treated loss of power as a narcissistic injury. Whatever they were given, it was never enough.
Republicans lie 50% of the time. Democrats lie 90% of the time. Once you absorb that, politics in America becomes easy to understand.
By , at
Sun Jan 14, 04:16:00 PM:
Assistant Village Idiot -
Wow, you really have me characterized incorrectly... unless the "volumes" you have me speaking are rather muted. Indeed, the "volumes" spoken here are probably more about your poor assumptions regarding my opinions and good faith.
Ad hominem aside, I'm not convinced the option #5 you suggest is much of a departure. It seems to me that the Democrats currently believe that their "better idea" is to set a timetable for withdrawal and to then give up and get out as soon as possible. Many of them have said so on multiple occasions. You and I may not agree that this is "a better idea" - but many do believe that it is. I also don't think that having the Democrats start each of their critiques with such concessions as "yeah, it's great the Saddam is gone" or "giving credit" of that type would fundamentally alter anything.
Look, most Democrats believe that the war cannot be won. Now, if Bill Kristol is of the opinion that the Democrats are incorrect, he may want to think twice about rhetoric that pushes the Democrats away from their current toothless method of opposition towards one that guarantees that the war will be lost.
By , at
Sun Jan 14, 04:34:00 PM:
AVI: When you say with something like "Republicans lie 50% of the time. Democrats lie 90% of the time," then it's a signal that you aren't really interested in a serious discussion, but I'll give it a shot.
Because of the way people like Sensenbrenner ran congressional committees, the Dems were reduced to an almost completely ineffective minority, whether you believe it or not. They were given no chances to introduce legislation on their own and were almost always excluded from the drafting process for the legislation that was voted on. This is pretty well-documented stuff, which you'd be aware of if you had, for example, been reading some blogs outside of your usual echo chamber, and Republicans have only themselves to blame for the divisions that this behavior created.
Believe it or not, most Dem and Repub pols both want what they feel will be best for the country. If you sincerely believe that the Dems as a whole, who represent about half the country, are *that* much more corrupt than Republicans that you don't believe anything they say, then you are both more cynical and more brainwashed than I would believe is possible for a thinking person.
By Papa Ray, at
Sun Jan 14, 05:30:00 PM:
While there is truth in every commentor's comment here, the one that is not spoken is that America's legislators have all gone to hell in the last thirty something years.
The Vietnam war did a lot of the damage, the seventies socialist revolution and the neglect and rewriting of America's history has done it's fair share. It's hard to counter the national change in our character, when our educational system is churning out little liberal socialists by the thousands each year.
Iraq is but one battle in this war against Islam and the Islamics, we will still be in Iraq in 2020, much like we are now in Korea and other spots on this planet.
What this administration does is important, but what the next ten do are going to be just as important.
That is what is missing in our national attitude, we just don't believe that our Republic is in the most important fight of it's short life.
But we are.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Jan 14, 06:09:00 PM:
Unfortunately, American politicians seldom follow the advice of Dr. W. Edwards Deming (1900-1993), an American industrial consultant and the father of the Japanese industrial revival after World War II.
"Fix the problem, not the blame," Deming said.
By , at
Sun Jan 14, 07:25:00 PM:
"Fix the problem, not the blame," Deming said.
Great, let's first agree on a definition of the problem
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Jan 14, 08:29:00 PM:
Sorry, Anonymous, I don't do free consulting work. But this blog has a number of smart commenters from both the political left and the political right. Perhaps one or more of them will oblige you after they read your proposed definition.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Jan 14, 11:39:00 PM:
Howard - sorry if I misunderstood you. I agree that the Democrats have indeed advocated setting a timetable and mentioned it often. I don't see that they have done more than this, and I find that inadequate. Still, it is something.
Well Phrizz, you're right about my 50%-90% comment. It was over-the-top and said more for effect than helpfully, which doesn't move us forward very well. And as none of us can lie more than a minor fraction of the time anyway, it isn't accurate.
That said, I stand behind my assessment of the Democratic complaining about being left out. Starting right off in 1994, there were complaints of being left out before there had actually been any legislation introduced. The appropriations per party for committees were reallocated and the Dems lost staff. But the new allotments were closer to equal than they had allowed the Republicans when they had control.
I take the years 1958-1994 as the baseline, not 1994-2006. The Republicans - generally - involved the Democrats far more than they had been allowed to themselves. Bush made numerous concessions right after the close 2000 elections, including some gestures that were unprecedented in presidential history, such as keeping Clinton appointees and nominees held over. It did not stop the rhetoric of how disenfranchised the Democrats felt.
If you make your starting point the year 2000, I can see why it might look to you as if the minority party was terribly cheated and are now just getting a little of their own back. But that is only a small slice of the graph.
By Georg Felis, at
Sun Jan 14, 11:47:00 PM:
I’ll agree with Phrizz on a point, modified. Because of the way Republicans ran committees, Democrats were unable to get a vote on legislation that was so unpopular with the Republicans that nobody would co-sponsor it. Which left a large logjam of popular (to Democrats) issues that they are cramming down the House in the first 100 Undefined Timeframe Units Which Are Not Really Hours But We’re Calling It Hours. It also allowed the Republicans a several un-vetoed year window to put forward their agenda of Lower Taxes, Less Regulation and Lower Spending, an opportunity which they blew bigtime.
But back to the point. What we are seeing here is the John Kerry House/Senate. They have realized that if they take a position on both sides of the fence (Publicly denounce the war, vote to graciously finance the Commander in Chief running the Armed Forces) then whatever the result, they can declare they were in favor of it all the time and won’t you vote for Hillary in 2008 please so she can keep doing it.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict within two to four weeks, we will see some non-nuclear things blowing up outside of Iraq. IED manufacturing plants, storage locations, or anti-aircraft missiles. And please publish the video on Youtube.
By Papa Ray, at
Mon Jan 15, 12:05:00 AM:
"I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict within two to four weeks, we will see some non-nuclear things blowing up outside of Iraq."
I guess you missed the UFO that crashed (that resulted in a huge mushroom shaped cloud) in Iran, and the three large mysterious explosions in the south of Iran, that were quickly attributed to blowing up (old leftover from the war), mines.
Or maybe you believe Iran's media.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Mon Jan 15, 12:34:00 PM:
I think a lot (not all, but a lot) of Democratic politicians simply trust Bush to dig himself and his party deeper and deeper. That results in a bigger Democratic majority in 2008. They'll go on record, making serious noises and saying the right things, but ultimately they're willing to let Bush do wherever he wants as long as it means more power in 2 years. Bad for the country, but good for Democrats. That's the problem with zero-sum mentality.
Bush has two priorities in the next two years: the Iraq war, and staving off investigations into executive indiscretions. Democrats will be happy to trade both of those for more progressive domestic policy. The war gives them a greater share of the electorate, and they have no reason to cripple the executive branch in their ascendency. So even when they barter Bush's priorities for a progressive agenda, they won't think they're giving anything away.
The upshot is a lot of heavily negotiated legislation may be passed in the next two years, and Bush won't be the one to pull us out of Iraq. Those two things will do wonders for his legacy. It just might not be too kind on conservative politics.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jan 15, 03:47:00 PM:
John: You're right, Nixon did overstep his authorities. Gratuitously. And he suffered impeachment hearings and resigned in disgrace.
But I think that comparisons with Bush in this regard are stupid. The NSA listening program (which drew the largest amount of bluster) was, first, cleared with government lawyers. Then, it was demonstrated to and discussed with Congressional leaders. No one said anything. Then it finally went into effect. And despite all the media and Democratic firepower thrown at it, its legality has remained. I can't imagine Nixon going through the same process...
A basic but important difference was that Bush was targetting foreign nationals who want and try to kill Americans. (only international calls were covered by the program, right?) Nixon was targetting his domestic political opposition; Americans.
I suppose it's possible that some nasty, illegal abuse of Bush's presidential power might be uncovered eventually, but I just don't see it happening.
"To their own discredit, the Democrats in power only began to seriously oppose Bush's agenda when it became unpopular."
Hear hear. Ref: Another of my recent posts about how public opinion shouldn't influence policy.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Jan 15, 08:55:00 PM:
I would add, Dawnfire, that everyone who has seen the details of the NSA surveillance program has approved it.
