Leadership in the Democratic Congress is taking a seemingly interminable period of time to redefine itself. The 2006 mid-term elections ended years of Stalinesque control of Congress by an Iron-fisted and inflexible troika of GOP “leaders,” including “The Hammer,” “Doc” and the President. We now have a parade of so called Democratic leaders that seem more adept at making public announcements on what the Democrats will or won’t do, than they are competent to get the Democratic caucus to follow their outspoken positions. Many of those pronouncements have been unnecessary and premature, and because of that have weakened confidence in their leadership abilities.
Nancy Pelosi, upon taking the seat of Speaker of the House of Representatives, declared that impeachment of Bush and Cheney was “off the table.” Whether of not she personally believed that eschewing the strife of formal impeachment proceedings would be best for the country, she was imprudent to take that public position. Suppose that Patrick Fitzgerald had declared at the outset of the investigation into the Valerie Plame fiasco that indictment of White House officials was “off the table?” He would have been deemed derelict in his duty and properly removed from his position. To decide the outcome before examining the facts and evidence is irresponsible. The subsequent revelations and attempts to mislead Congress and obstruct investigations, as the wall of silence around White House machinations crumbles, suggest much more problematic and possibly criminal activity in the White House than Pelosi or the public knew about when she took over leadership. Impeachment is a Constitutional responsibility of the Congress when the requisite facts present themselves, not a discretionary option of the Speaker.
Now Sen. Carl Levin declares that Congress will not cut off funding for the Iraq war. As Chair of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, he has significant influence. However, it is far from evident that he has the right or ability to speak for the entire Democratic Congressional membership regarding whether funding for the war will be continued indefinitely. Of course, many of these pronouncements are simple political hyperbole. No one suggests that there would or should be a COMPLETE cessation of funding for the troops already committed to the Iraq theatre. Funds have already been appropriated that will sustain current levels of activity through the summer of 2007, at the very least, accorging to GAO official reports.
The issue is future funding, whether Congress will allow the Bush Administration to continue to play a game of “gotcha” indefinitely. Bush has sent additional troops into Iraq and Afghanistan against the will of the majority of the American people [and apparently the Iraqi people as well], and then declared that failure of Congress to back his precipitous strategy with a blank check is unpatriotic abandonment of the troops. The bipartisan opposition to his strategy struggles to avoid this mousetrap. Both Houses of Congress have passed bills that include conditions for continued funding that limit the arbitrary discretion Bush has exhibited. Bush threatens to veto any measure that infringes upon his absolute discretion in any way, claiming that Congress seeks to micromanage the war.
But the statement by Levin is both untimely and inappropriate. The current situation awaits important facts and information. The latest “Surge” initiative by Bush has shown no objecgtive evidence of better success than the past four similar attempts to quell violence. Its apparent failure is evidenced by statements of the chief US military leaders in Iraq indicating that the effort will take "years" to succeed, rather than the "months" that Bush told Congress and the American people would be required to gauge success of this Surge. The whole debate over funding rests upon questions of whether the dollars and the lives of our soldiers are being spent wisely or foolishly. To declare that future funding will not be constrained, at this point, is to suggest that Congress will continue to fund Bush's strategy no matter how unsuccessful, costly or ill advised it might be.
The current standoff between Congress and the White House will unfold as the Conference Committee works out compromise language that establishes conditions upon future funding. The President will have to decide whether to accept funding that provides a measure of compromise and cooperation that the Constitution envisions, or reject the requested funding altogether. It is fairly clear that Congress will not be able to override a veto, so Bush’s rejection of the legislation would send the measure back to the drawing board. In other words, the impending decision whether to cut off future funding will be made by President Bush, not the Congress. Levin should simply have remained quiet and patient as the drama unfolds. He should not have declared that cutting off funding for the troops is “off the table” when the decision is not his to make and the critical underlying facts have yet to be revealed.
Whatever leadership is, it is NOT premature and irresponsible grandstanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment