The Netroots have not been all that happy with Congressional Democrats this year. Congress has challenged the president on Iraq, and considered 40 bills to force a course change. But ultimately Democratic leaders have backed down and given the president the funding needed to continue the Iraq mission.
There's been a little glimmer of hope on the left in recent days however, with promises from many Democrats that they will not approve more Iraq funding unless it compels the president to begin a withdrawal. That's led to some hopeful comments at places like Talk Left, where they've endorsed Speaker Pelosi's newfound backbone. HuffPo is complimenting Democrats for rejecting Iraq funding, and wondering how long their defiance of the president will continue. And at Comments from Left Field there's satisfaction with the current stance, mixed with apprehension about what Democratic leaders may do in the near future.
What Democratic leaders have been unwilling to discuss is that they've already done it. As we reported here a week ago, Democrats have passed a defense spending bill which they believe gives the president all the authority he needs to shift funds within defense accounts, allowing the war to continue for at least 'the next few months.'
Roll Call covers the story today:
Having quietly ensured last week that troops in Iraq will continue to be funded for at least the next few months, House and Senate Democrats feel free to use their final week before Thanksgiving to try yet again to attach a withdrawal timetable to any specific war funding.
By giving President Bush a $460 billion Defense spending bill that allows him to divert funding from regular Pentagon accounts to fund the war, Democrats believe they've insulated themselves from accusations that they are withholding money from soldiers "in harm's way," without having to explicitly vote for a "blank check..."
Indeed, the latest Democratic war funding strategy appears to be one in which they provide funding for the war through back channels like the Defense bill, but withhold explicit funding until the White House caves to their demands...
It's a risky strategy that may only last until the Defense Department comes begging for more money after reallocating the $460 billion they've been given. Unless a critical mass of Republicans develops a sudden willingness to defy the president, funding bills attached to withdrawal timetables won't become law.
Congressional leaders continue to try to have it both ways. They offer posturing for the liberal base while trying to seem moderate to mainstream voters. And while this move doesn't obviate the need for Congress to approve the Iraq supplemental, it certainly reduces the urgency. Still, even if current operations are not adversely affected--which would be a surprise--funds would need to be replenished in depleted Pentagon accounts. As a result, Democrats are simply deferring the confrontation with the president for a few more months. And the only way Democrats can win the fight is if things go wrong in Iraq.
Is that any way to manage national security?
