The New York Times offers a fiction this morning: "Democrats Say They Won't Back Down on War."
All signs indicate that Democrats will continue proposing such measures as long as Mr. Bush remains in office and troops remain in Iraq. "We are going to keep plugging away," said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee...
But other Democrats see a big risk. "There is a lot of unease and disappointment," said Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, who is running for president. "The perception is that we are not leading on this issue. I get it every single day, wherever I go."
Mr. Dodd said lawmakers should just stop financing for the war. "Congress has one authority here, and that's the funding," he said. "The founders never intended for us as a body together to manage a conflict." Mr. Dodd voted to block the spending measure.
This is nonsense.
Democrats might continue proposing these pointless measures, but they'll be vetoed. And as long as Iraq continues to show signs of improvement (like this, this, this, this, and this), there's no reason to expect that Republicans will join Democrats to enact such measures over the veto of the president. The opposite is more likely to be true--as Democrats continue to propose them, Republican votes will harden in opposition, and each round of votes will attract less attention than the one before. This retrogade action will die with a whimper, not a bang.
The only important question is what Congressional Democrats will do about funding the effort, notwithstanding their legislative games. Chris Dodd says he wants to cut it off, but he's just doing what economists call 'free-riding.' He knows Congress will provide money for the war effort no matter what he says. He might as well speak in ineffectual opposition, secure in the knowledge that he's more or less powerless to influence the debate.
That's because no matter what Congressional leaders say, it's becoming clear that there's not a majority in either the House or Senate to cut off funds completely, as Dodd calls for. If Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid were to refuse to provide funding, they would face a coalition of Republicans and moderate Democrats who would pass an appropriations bill over the objections of their leaders. (That's also why it's unlikely ever to come to that point.)
Democrats are speaking bravely about 'keeping the pressure on,' but it's all in their minds --unless Chris Dodd wants to gather 40 Senators who are willing to filibuster a funding resolution when it ultimately comes their way. That will be the test of whether he and those who share his opinion are offering anything more than hot air.
