Congress has yet to act on the president's request for roughly $200 billion in supplemental funding for the war on terror, including the war in Iraq. Given Speaker Pelosi's recent promise that Democrats would offer 'more of the same' in an effort to get President Bush to 'change course' (again?), it appears that Congress is quietly preparing another 'blank check:'
After Republicans repeatedly rebuffed Democratic attempts to adopt war restrictions in September following Army Gen. David Petraeus' testimony to Congress, Democrats began approving billions in extra funding, starting with the first stopgap spending resolution. Next up will be the regular Defense spending bill, expected to go to conference committee Tuesday. Although the bill is not expected to include funding specifically targeted to Iraq, Democrats plan to allow much of the funding to be diverted from regular Defense accounts to the war. Democratic Defense appropriators also are separately eyeing adding tens of billions in war funds, either in a small separate supplemental or attached to the next must-pass stopgap continuing resolution. They had sought to include $50 billion or more in such supplemental funding in the Defense bill itself, but leadership overrode that idea after the party's most ardent war foes complained.
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said last week the Defense Department should be able to keep the war going "until May or June" with the extra flexibility and partial funding.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also indicated Friday that Democrats are thinking of including war funding in the next CR. The existing CR expires Nov. 16.
In a delicious irony, it seems that with regard to ending the Iraq war, Democrats may have decided to declare victory and go home:
One Senate Democratic leadership aide acknowledged that Democrats will continue to fund the troops but said that does not prevent the majority from also forcing a change in the way the war is being waged.
When earlier this year the anti-war base pushed for Congress simply to cut off funds, Congressional leaders refused, fearing the political fallout. Now, given the success of the surge, such a move is increasingly unlikely.
If Congressional leaders continue with this approach, it's an indication that rhetoric and bluster notwithstanding, they want to continue to play politics with Iraq. If they were serious about this issue--either seriously opposed to the war or serious about supporting our military--they would either fully fund the war (instead of doing it on the installment plan), or cut off funds. The only reason to resort to this approach is that Democrats want to force more votes on funding, in the hopes that Iraq may suddenly fail, presenting them a new political opportunity.
Rather than walking softly and carrying a big stick, Speaker Pelosi is loudly promising continued resistance on Iraq, but yielding to the president at every turn. While this might be smart politics, Pelosi ought to know that the last thing the American people want is 'more of the same' failed policy.
