Democrats

last updated 8 January 2015

The Democrats were joyful when they seized control of both houses of Congress in November. But now the new Congress is facing its first major dilemma, said Jonathan Weisman in The Washington Post. An overwhelming majority of Democratic senators and House members oppose President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, and so do, the polls indicate, most Americans. But party leaders are reluctant to use the one weapon at their disposal to stop the deployment'”cutting off the funding necessary to support the extra troops. Instead, to the dismay of the party's anti-war base, both the House and Senate are expected to pass nonbinding resolutions opposing the troop 'œsurge,' so they can't be accused of 'œundercutting' the war. In effect, they're choosing to stand by and let Bush take full responsibility for whatever happens next. As GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio has observed, 'œThe first rule of politics is never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.'

It's about time the Democrats learned to play smart politics, said Will Marshall in The New Republic Online. Having cast themselves as the voice of moderation in the midterm elections, the Democrats'”with a thin and fragile majority in both houses'”simply can't afford to try and 'œmicromanage' troop deployments in Iraq. 'œIf there is to be a calamitous, Vietnam-style defeat in Iraq, Karl Rove would probably like nothing better than to goad Democrats into assuming co-responsibility for it.' Why fall into that trap?

How gutless, said John Kass in the Chicago Tribune. The Democrats won Congress largely on the strength of the public's disgust with Bush's handling of the war. Now, instead of offering new ideas, Democrats are content 'œto posture without much risk.' It's an unconscionable dereliction of duty, agreed Joe Conason in The New York Observer. Hundreds of young men and women will die as a result of Bush's attempt to postpone the inevitable. 'œFor anyone who no longer supports this war, or never did, the only moral choice is to say no.'

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

The Democrats are claiming that they don't have the authority to halt the surge, said The Nation in an editorial. 'œAs a practical matter,' said Sen. Joe Biden, 'œthere is no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop.'' But there are many instances'”in Cambodia, Lebanon, Colombia, and elsewhere'”where Congress has 'œcurtailed or ended military deployments' by cutting off funding. It would be perfectly within Congress' constitutional authority to require its approval for any further troop deployments or expenditures.

That, though, would require courage, which the 'œboneless wonders' of Congress don't have, said William Kristol in The Weekly Standard. They'd rather pass a resolution that tells our enemy America is divided, undermines the president, and thus reduces 'œthe chances of success in Iraq.' If they oppose the current strategy, Democrats will have a responsibility to propose 'œa real alternative.' But that would require constructive ideas and leadership. From this group of craven opportunists? 'œNo way.'

Dan Gilgoff

U.S. News & World Report

John Brummett

Las Vegas Review-Journal

Explore More