Democratic Lack of Courage and Iraq Options

Most pundits and blogosphere writers on the right side have noted that Democrats lack the courage of their stated convictions, namely that the Democratically controlled Congress could pass binding, as opposed to non-binding, resulutions about the conduct of the war.. The common meme is that to defund the war means that the Democrats would suffer the political consequences should Iraq fall apart and that the GOP would have a mighty weapon in the 2008 elections. But what if the authorization were reversed? That is the new idea being floated on the Senate side, to de-authorize the war. What ever course of action, whether the slow-bleed strategy, defunding or deauthorizing the war, the Democrats will lose in the law and likely in the court of public opinion.

Yesterday, George Will pointed out another reason, a good one at that. Constitutionally, the Democratic "slow bleed" strategy is doomed to failure.

Suppose Democrats write their restrictions on the use of forces into legislation that funds the war. And suppose the president signs the legislation but ignores the restrictions, calling them unconstitutional usurpations of his powers as commander in chief. What could Democrats do? Cross First Street NE and ask the Supreme Court to compel the president to acquiesce in congressional micromanagement of a war? The court probably would refuse to get involved on the grounds that this is a "political question."

The Court would be absolutely right in deferring on the question. The Constitution clearly gives the President the power of Commander in Chief and he, and he alone, has the final decision making authority over what troops to send where. What could happen next?

Well, the House could vote to impeach the President for failing to carry out the laws passed by Congress. But the President, as well as Congress, has just as strong a duty to ensure the Constitutionality of the laws as the Supreme Court. So the House does have the ability to get Articles of Impeachment out, but the Democrats don't have a prayer of getting 67 votes to convict. The Democrats in additon would look like petulant school children before the American people and they could kiss 2008 goodbye, along with their Congressional majority.

Thus, even the "slow bleed strategy" is doomed to failure because Democrats would lack the courage to pursue the strategy to its likely end, a showdown impeachment trial in the Senate.

But what if the war is "de-authorized." That strategy too is fraught with failure potential. Initially, the Senate would have to get past a probably GOP filibuster. Even if the White House asked Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to allow a vote, the Dems have an even bigger problem--their own majority may be in jeopardy. Sen. Joseph Lieberman has sent signals that a vote to de-authorize the use of military force may lead to his departure from a Democratic party that has been all to ready to throw him under the bus. The there is the veto, which the President is all but sure to do. The Democrats will never be able to muster 67 votes necessary to over ride the veto in the Senate and probably wouldn't come to close to the 2/3 necessary in the House either, even with Republican defections.

What about a different strategy, defund the war in the appropriations battle, a strategy the Democrats are loath to take, but lets persue the hypothetical. Assuming the Democrats move forward with the gutless tactics of defunding the war, they have a real problem--the very same Veto Pen from above. President Bush could and should veto any legislation, namely the Armed Services appropriations bill that would contain any language defunding the war. That appropriations bill contains, along with funds for prosecuting the Iraq war, authorizes the funds to pay the military and civilian employees of the military--a not insignificant voting bloc. But the Armed Services appropriations bill also pays the government contractors that build weapons and supply materials to the military, an industy that reaches into every Congressional district in America. The Democrats no matter what their stance cannot afford to offend such powerful constituencies.

So the Democrats throw a bill that defunds the war and somehow get past a GOP filibuster in the Senate. The President Vetoes' the bill. Now Congress needs a 2/3 majority to override the veto--good luck.

The Democrats are already on the hot seat with this issue. There is a small, but significant portion of the voting pulic that doesn't like the war, but feels we can't abandon the mission now. Any moves by the Democrats to leave the war unfinished will no doubt cost them in 2008. Already moderate Democrats are uncomfortableeven with the slow bleed strategy. As the liberal base keeps pushing this issue with these bad ideas, the Democrats will finally live up to their recent past by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.