![[Iowa map]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/05/GR2005120501681.gif)
Antiwar Forces Resigned to Another Loss
Lost somewhat amid the hubbub yesterday of Republicans using a parliamentary trick to bring down funding for Iraq and Afghanistan was the fact that another piece of the supplemental package, backed by antiwar members, did pass the House and will now move on to the Senate.
But does that mean antiwar lawmakers were rejoicing in the aisles? Will Congress finally force an end to the war? No. Or at least, not this year.
The second part of the Democrats legislative trifecta, which passed 227-196, would mandate that troops start coming home from Iraq within 30 days, with a "goal" of removing all combat forces by December 2009. The measure also requires the Iraqi government to pay for more of the country's reconstruction costs and for the U.S. mililtary to be able to buy fuel there at the same subsidized rates that Iraqis get.
And the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday reported out its own version of the supplemental, which also includes nonbinding language calling for troops to come home by 2009. But no one on either side of the aisle expects any substantive withdrawal language to make it through the Senate and its 60-vote hurdle for passage, meaning antiwar lawmakers will fail once again to force President Bush to change his Iraq policy (and Bush would veto any such bill if it reached his desk anyway).
Republicans are in dire political straits right now. Shouldn't more of them be changing their tune on Iraq?
"Well, you would think, but I haven't seen it," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a leader of the House's antiwar faction. "I really don't think [Republicans] are in the habit of helping Democrats."
Indeed, only eight Republicans voted in favor of the withdrawal measure yesterday, along with 219 Democrats. But polls seem to indicate the public wants decisive change. A national survey just released by Quinnipiac University found that 67 percent of respondents disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq, 62 percent believe that going to war was the "wrong thing" for the country, 22 percent want to withdraw troops "as soon as possible" and 48 percent believe we should "set a timetable" for withdrawal.
So why hasn't that public sentiment decisively influenced Congress?
"That's the $64,000 question. It's a tough one," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), a top lieutenant to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Miller said voters were frustrated with the war and want troops to come home, "But I think they essentially now understand that we're not going to get an effective cutoff [of troop deployments] through the Senate and signed by the president."
Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.), a moderate Republican with a mixed record on voting for withdrawal measures, said the public wants troops to come home but also understands the consequences of a hasty withdrawal. "They don't want us to lose. They don't want chaos," Shays said.
Only eight months remain in the Bush presidency, and Miller and other Democrats said they are resigned to the fact that no real change will come to Iraq policy until (they hope) their party takes over the White House next January. In the meantime, Bush will continue to get his way no matter what the antiwar members -- or the polls -- say.
By Ben Pershing |
May 16, 2008; 11:15 AM ET
Iraq
Previous: House Republicans Block War Funds |
Next: Player of the Week: Chris Van Hollen
Posted by: Sad | May 16, 2008 12:18 PM
Congress has the power to cutoff funding. I've known for sometime that its not politically feasible to do so, but maybe that will change someday.
Posted by: UnPatriotic | May 16, 2008 1:03 PM
"But no one on either side of the aisle expects any substantive withdrawal language to overcome the expected Republican filibuster in the Senate."
There, fixed that for you.
Posted by: MrWhite | May 16, 2008 1:50 PM
the congress was elected to end this war so what happened?Do they a lot of investments in defence contractors?Are they indeed making to much money to really want this war to end?Why is Pelosi blocking impeachment?What is her advantage to keeping bush in the whitehouse?The fact of the matter is all of the scumbags sware an oath to the constitution then use it for toilet paper.The only thing they are out to do is line thier own pockets.If by chance someone else benefits that's ok but if they don't then to hell with it.The only way this country is going to return to it's former greatness is for the people to hold those in power accountable to the oaths they have sworn.Personally I would hang them for treason.
Posted by: gary2547poh | May 17, 2008 3:42 PM
A nation that would hang politicians for doing what they believe to be right isn't great. A great nation is one where people care about doing the right thing, for their families and for their communities, and they have the freedom to do it for themselves. Politicians who want to end the war in Iraq just so they'll have billions more to spend doing things for people to win their votes deserve to be beaten in a show of hands.
Posted by: Carol | May 19, 2008 12:23 PM
Americans don't like to lose. They also are eternal optimists. It is hard to accept the fact that we have an incompetent
president. How can someone be so inept and get that far? And yet to impeach this egg head would put Cheney in a new position of power. Cheney would bomb Iran and end the world as we know it. So, the Congress is left with curtailing the excesses of stupidity in the White House and all the federal agencies that Bush has packed with his ill prepared, untrained political cronies.
Posted by: CarmanK | May 19, 2008 3:32 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
How many more soldiers will die while Lame Duck BushCo sits on their collective hands? Very very sad day/year/8years for America and it's people.