Democrats' Struggle to Change Course in Iraq Has Produced Much Debate, Little Action
By Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz
Washington Post
On the morning of Dec. 18, 2006, the phone lines in the office of incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid suddenly lit up -- a warning signal that the coming debate over Iraq could prove a perilous exercise for congressional Democrats.
Though an official announcement was weeks away, it was already clear that, the election returns notwithstanding, President Bush was preparing to send more troops into Iraq, not getting ready to pull them out. The new Senate leader, asked the day before about his reaction to those reports, sounded mildly receptive. "If . . . it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then sure, I'll go along with it," Reid said.
Mobilized by MoveOn.org, one of the antiwar groups that helped the Democrats retake the House and Senate the previous month, liberal war opponents registered their outrage over Reid's conciliatory words.
The Nevada Democrat quickly offered a clarification -- in a posting, fittingly enough, on a liberal Web site. The party's position began to harden into solid opposition, putting the administration on notice that Democrats were determined to try to force a change in Bush's policy. The problem was, no one knew or agreed on just how to go about it. Democrats began their fight against what came to be called the surge with public opinion on their side, but with virtually no real weapons to force Bush to change, given the realities of a 51-49 Senate majority.
In the past eight months, there have been multiple resolutions opposing the troop increase, numerous proposals to establish timetables for withdrawal, plans to repeal the original congressional authorization that gave Bush the power to go to war and even an effort to cut off funds for the conflict. But Democrats have not succeeded in forcing a single, substantial change in the president's policy, and they have watched Congress's approval rating, as measured by the Gallup Poll, slide to the lowest recorded since Gallup began measuring in 1974.
"What we have done is made it very difficult for Republicans to continue to hide on whether they agree with the president or not on Iraq," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), describing the political gain Democrats think they have achieved since the beginning of the year. "Whether or not they'll take that final step and actually break by actually overriding a veto, if we ever get to that, or break by supporting very tough language that constricts his movement, remains to be seen."
(Continued here.)
Washington Post
On the morning of Dec. 18, 2006, the phone lines in the office of incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid suddenly lit up -- a warning signal that the coming debate over Iraq could prove a perilous exercise for congressional Democrats.
Though an official announcement was weeks away, it was already clear that, the election returns notwithstanding, President Bush was preparing to send more troops into Iraq, not getting ready to pull them out. The new Senate leader, asked the day before about his reaction to those reports, sounded mildly receptive. "If . . . it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then sure, I'll go along with it," Reid said.
Mobilized by MoveOn.org, one of the antiwar groups that helped the Democrats retake the House and Senate the previous month, liberal war opponents registered their outrage over Reid's conciliatory words.
The Nevada Democrat quickly offered a clarification -- in a posting, fittingly enough, on a liberal Web site. The party's position began to harden into solid opposition, putting the administration on notice that Democrats were determined to try to force a change in Bush's policy. The problem was, no one knew or agreed on just how to go about it. Democrats began their fight against what came to be called the surge with public opinion on their side, but with virtually no real weapons to force Bush to change, given the realities of a 51-49 Senate majority.
In the past eight months, there have been multiple resolutions opposing the troop increase, numerous proposals to establish timetables for withdrawal, plans to repeal the original congressional authorization that gave Bush the power to go to war and even an effort to cut off funds for the conflict. But Democrats have not succeeded in forcing a single, substantial change in the president's policy, and they have watched Congress's approval rating, as measured by the Gallup Poll, slide to the lowest recorded since Gallup began measuring in 1974.
"What we have done is made it very difficult for Republicans to continue to hide on whether they agree with the president or not on Iraq," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), describing the political gain Democrats think they have achieved since the beginning of the year. "Whether or not they'll take that final step and actually break by actually overriding a veto, if we ever get to that, or break by supporting very tough language that constricts his movement, remains to be seen."
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home