This Week in Iraq-Related Political Maneuvering

In the last week before the Congressional Thanksgiving Recess, there were fireworks across D.C. related to Iraq. From the White House's newfound offensive on administration critics (the 're-writing history' angle comes to mind), to Rep. John Murtha outlining his plan for redeploying American troops serving in Iraq "as soon as practicable" (not 'immediately' as the Republican leadership would have us think, more on that later), and finally to Friday's debacle on the floor of the House over a hastily drawn up resolution, which represented not a message of support to the troops from Congress, but rather a weak attempt at mischaracterizing a combat-veteran's thoughtful plan for a change of course. Yesterday's events, in particular, provided a glimpse into the behind the scenes maneuvering of both parties, as each begins to position itself for the 2006 midterms.

Let's start from the top. While the White House continues to advocate 'staying the course' in Iraq, it has certainly changed course in dealing with stateside critics of administration policies. Bruised and battered after weeks of negative press and, more recently, attacks from a newly invigorated opposition in Congress, the White House unleashed its own attacks to discredit war critics. Responding to accusations that the administration manipulated intelligence prior to the war in Iraq, President Bush accused Democrats of trying to "rewrite history." The most spirited and vicious attacks, naturally, came from Vice President Dick Cheney, a leading supporter of the war and Democrats #1 target. From Reuters: (here:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051117/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc)

In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a "dishonest and reprehensible" political ploy.
Cheney called Democrats "opportunists" who were peddling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq...
"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons program.
Cheney said the suggestion Bush or any member of the administration misled Americans before the war "is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

This week has made it clear that the Bush administration has decided that they must respond to partisan attacks with partisan attacks. That's all well and good, except for one major flaw: their rhetoric on actual policy remains the same. "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down;" "Stay the course;" we shouldn't "cut and run" - These lines have been used for months, and Bush's approval ratings continue to plummet. Real change in public perception of the war will come only when this administration begins to open up to new ideas and a possible change of course (something they seem to be reluctant to do). No reasonable person (not even most Democrats) want to "withdraw immediately" from Iraq, for the consequences would indeed be dire. However, the President must realize that our ability to change centuries of history in the Middle East, and particularly in Iraq, is limited. Changing course in Iraq and actually outlining some sort of exit strategy are not the absurd notions that Republicans would have us believe.
(By the way...it's fun to hear Cheney talk about dishonesty, shameful political tactics, and reprehensible rhetoric. I seem to remember a certain VP telling a leader in Congress to.....what was it.....ah yes, "Go F**k yourself." Now who was that...)

Meanwhile, in the Senate this week, Senate Democrats introduced an amendment (SA 2519) to the National Defense Appropriations Act For Fiscal Year 2006 (S 1042) that, among other things, called for the following (emphasis mine):

(3) Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq;

(4) United States military forces should not stay in Iraq indefinitely and the people of Iraq should be so advised;...

(6) A schedule for meeting such conditions, an assessment of the extent to which such conditions have been met, information regarding variables that could alter that schedule, and the reasons for any subsequent changes to that schedule.

(7) A campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.

This amendment was defeated in the Senate. A Republican amendment (SA 2518), sponsored by Sen. Warner and Sen. Frist, expressing similar sentiments (with key differences in rhetoric and the elimination of parts 6 and 7 - which Republicans said called for a "timetable" for withdrawal) passed by a vote of 79-19. The passage of the Republican amendment was certainly a significant event. While watered down a bit from the Democratic version (which was defeated 40-58), this amendment still called for 2006 to be a year of significant transition (aka not a year of staying the course). (Full text of both amendments can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r109:./temp/~r109qNWkBH - notice differences in rhetoric)
What does this mean? Leaders in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, recognize the need to examine our policy in Iraq. Staying the course is not an acceptable strategy (in fact, its not really a strategy at all) - especially for members of Congress up for re-election in 2006.

Let's move over to the House, where discussion of Iraq was markedly more contentious this week. After a few days of the Administration's new offensive, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA-12), a decorated Marine veteran and ranking member on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, outlined his plan for changing course in Iraq. In a much talked about press conference, Rep. Murtha said the following (according to prepared remarks, here: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html):

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course...The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin...I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won militarily. I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress...I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free...Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

Coming from a hawk like Rep. Murtha, this statement was indeed shocking. The emotion and conviction with which he spoke made it clear that he did not take his words lightly - this was not an attempt to play on the American public's ambivalence over the war; rather, these were the words of a long time advocate for U.S. troops who fought back tears as he spoke out for what he felt was right. Was this opportunisticic as Vice President Cheney would like us to think? Was it reprehensible? Dishonest? No. What is reprehensible is that the White House is willing to allow the men and women of the United States Armed Forces to be targeted by insurgent attacks, without even entertaining new ideas. Should we pull out immediately? No. However, it is time to recognize that, as Rep. Murtha outlined, our ability to change the situation on the ground, with the current troop levels, is severelyly limited.

And now the proverbial s**t begins to hit the fan...On Friday, hours before Congress was to recess for Thanksgiving, the House Republican Leadership rushed a resolution to the floor calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Republican resolution apparently was supposed to represent Murtha's proposal; it was rushed to the floor on the last day before a recess in order to pit Democrats up against one of the most respected members of their own caucus. This move amounted to nothing more than a transparent political ploy. The Republican leadership is wrong in assuming that they will win any debate on foreign policy/defense/war on terror - this is clearly no longer the case.
As if this ploy alone wasn't bad enough, the 'debate' that accompanied it was laced with personal attacks as well as the usual partisan talking points. Republicans hit rock bottom when the most junior member of the House, Jean Schmidt, sent the following message to Rep. Murtha: "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Needless to say, it got quite ugly from here. The Washington Post describes the showdown as follows (full story here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802896.html):

Differences over policy on the Iraq war ignited an explosion of angry words and personal insults on the House floor yesterday when the chamber's newest member suggested that a decorated war veteran was a coward for calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
As Democrats physically restrained one colleague, who appeared as if he might lose control of himself as he rushed across the aisle to confront Republicans with a jabbing finger, they accused Republicans of playing political games with the war...[Following Schmidt's attack] Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.
Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side.

Watching this unfold was like watching the British House of Commons: booing and shouting, the presiding officer desperately trying to call the House to order. The only difference? The House of Commons is much more civil than our House proved to be on Friday.

(I've spent much of my time criticizing Republicans with regard to Friday's House debacle. Democrats don't get off completely unscrutinized: For instance, Rep. Dennis Kucinich's hissy fit would've been comical if the subject matter weren't so serious.)

Okay, so now what? Judging from the House showdown, I think it's safe to say that the '06 Midterms will be ugly, to say the least. These races will go negative hard and early. If Democrats want to gain any credibility on Iraq, they musn't cower to White House/Republican attacks. However, Democrats must also offer alternative policies. They cannot rely on partisan attacks alone. 'Firing up the base' will only get them so far. The ambivalent middle of the country needs to hear alternatives. Nobody wants to cut and run; what Americans want are answers about intelligence failures/manipulations (yes that's right, I tend not to trust WH assertions that intelligence wasn't tampered with) and alternative proposals for the future. Without proposals for the future, the Democrats won't get as far as they'd hope. For Republicans, they can no longer assume victory in debates over foreign policy and defense matters. It seems, somewhat ironically, that the 2006 midterms will be more of a referendum on Iraq than the 2004 Presidential election. Interesting indeed.

(P.S. Dick Cheney looks like a fool in tuxedo - I had to fit that in somewhere.)

UPDATE: Let's not forget what really matters in all of this discussion:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3359080/ - U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq, as of 11/15

Faces of the Fallen (9/15-11/19), via WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm

Also from WP: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111800111.html)

BAGHDAD, Nov. 18 -- Suicide bombers killed nearly 100 people Friday in one of the deadliest days of Iraq's insurgency, bringing houses down on sleeping families in Baghdad and shredding Shiite Muslim worshipers in two mosques in the eastern part of the country just as the victims turned their faces up to the preachers to hear their Friday sermons.