“Iraq is going to be there,” says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).  “It’s just a question of when we get back to it.”

That’s how Reid justified the decision of the Senate Democratic majority to put off deliberation on the Biden-Levin proposal to repeal the 2002 Congressional authorization for war in Iraq and to limit the U.S. military’s role in the conflict.  According to the Associated Press, Reid “wants to put off votes on the new, narrower war authorization so the Senate can turn to a measure enacting the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 commission.”  The AP notes that “Democrats are eager to pass the 9/11 measure—one of a handful they promised to push through once in power—to show they can govern.”  (Emphasis added.)

In the House chamber:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi now says that she won’t support a move to tie funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. forces.  Says the AP:

The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the former Marine combat veteran who has said he wants to use Congress’ spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.

The recent pronouncements by Murtha on the war in Iraq have served to turn him into a pariah.  Within his own party he’s increasingly being viewed as a Democratic “Typhoid Mary.”  Outside the party he’s become a flat-out object of derision.  Speaker Pelosi says she supports setting training and readiness targets for the troops—something that Murtha has advocated—but adds:

I don’t see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops.

Back in the Senate, Harry Reid is still mumbling:

We’re doing the very best we can.  Iraq is here. It’s not going to go away.  (Emphasis added.)

And the natives are growing restless.  The AP quotes the Washington director of MoveOn.org, Tom Matzzie:

The public is saying, ‘We hired you to get out of Iraq - now figure it out.’  There is a risk that without action, frustration boils over into anger.

But herein lies the rub.  The Democratic Congress has neither the cohesiveness nor the fortitude to take a firm political stance on the course of the war in Iraq.  Oh, they’re quite good at making fanciful pronouncements (read: posturing), to be sure (à la the Murtha-Biden-Levin triumvirate), but ask Congressional Democrats to man up and actually go on the record with a vote on the thing, and the whole bunch shrinks back into the shadows.  “But, but, but….”

Senator Reid is quite tired of ducking the salient question of the day.  (Why aren’t you people going to discuss the Biden-Levin proposal this week—like you said you would?)  So he sends out a flunky to do his speaking for him:

The administration is increasingly isolated and they are increasingly at odds with where the American people are.  We’re going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course.

That is, maybe after we take care of this important 9/11 Commission stuff, the flunky failed to add.  “We’re going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course,” the man says.  Going at what? I ask.  What, pray tell, have you done?  I’m reminded of a Jules Crittenden article I read this past weekend in which the columnist described the most recent House resolution on the war in Iraq as a “strong, uncompromising, forceful non-binding resolution with a self-negating caveat.”  (The term “Dem Cong” that I used in the title of this post was coined by Crittenden in the article “Quagmire.”  Read it.  It’s excellent.)

Yes.  That about says it.  Mr. Crittenden goes on to paraphrase Mr. Bush’s reaction to the nonbinding resolution:

Thank you, that was interesting.

Ouch!

The AP article contains a stinging appraisal of early Democratic efforts in the 110th Congress to address the war in Iraq:

The developments on both sides of the Capitol reflected disarray in Democratic ranks on Iraq. Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war, Democrats have seen their efforts stymied under realities more complicated than they found on the campaign trail.
[…]
The Democrats’ symbolic measure disapproving of Bush’s decision to send 21,500 more troops into Iraq over the next few months passed the House on Feb. 16 only to stall in the Senate. The House plan to place strict restrictions on war funding appears to lack enough support within Democratic ranks to succeed, and looks likely to be scaled back, considering Pelosi’s latest comments.
[…]
The Senate bid to narrow the 2002 resolution authorizing the war appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to be approved in the Senate, and action on it now is likely to be put off—at least for the week.  (Emphasis added.)

Oh!  That’s what Harry was trying so hard not to say….

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, decision, Senate, Democratic majority, put off deliberation, Biden-Levin proposal, repeal, 2002 Congressional authorization, war in Iraq, limit, U.S. military’s role in the conflict, narrower war authorization, enact, recommendations, bipartisan 9/11 commission, House chamber, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, tie funding, strict training and readiness targets, U.S. forces, John Murtha, Congress’ spending power, force a change in policy in Iraq, war funding, war in Iraq, pariah, Typhoid Mary, object of derision, Senate, Washington director, MoveOn.org, Tom Matzzie, Democratic Congress, cohesiveness, fortitude, firm political stance, course of the war, posturing, Murtha-Biden-Levin triumvirate, go on the record with a vote, salient question, self-negating caveat, Dem Cong, stinging appraisal, early Democratic efforts, 110th Congress

Bookmark: