Early in 2007, Congressional Democrats split their conference–pitting moderates against liberals–as they considered whether and how to fund the Iraq war. They ultimately held their troops in line to pass an Iraq funding bill with a forced date for surrender. But when the president vetoed the measure, Democratic leaders stepped aside and allowed Republicans and moderate Democrats to pass legislation funding the war ‘with no strings attached.’ It seems that they’re intent on staging a replay. Reports in the last week in the Hill and Congressional Quarterly agree that Democrats are leaning toward giving the Pentagon part of the funding needed for the war before Christmas, but then waiting a few months on the rest. They’ll consider the remainder of the funding request early in 2008, in the hope of forcing surrender in Iraq. They’ll apparently do so even though the drawdown will be beginning by then, in a plan supported by the American people. From CQ:
The plan for Democrats will be to fund the war through the spring or early summer–after General Petraeus has provided Congress with the March update he promised. Democrats hope that with the 2008 election bearing down, Republicans will be wary of voting against a forced withdrawal. That’s a possibility; politicians are notably sensitive to the electoral cycle. But it could also be that Iraq continues to shrink as an item of concern in the public consciousness, so that there is little appetite for a fight that may undercut our troops at a time when we’re winning. It’s unwise to draw too many conclusions from polls, but it seems that Iraq is diminishing in importance in the eyes of voters. While 37 percent of Americans rated Iraq/the War as the top issue in July, the most recent poll shows it as the top concern of just 26 percent–with health care right behind at 25. If Iraq is indeed fading as an issue of public concern it may be because the media attention to the war seems to be declining. Congressional Democrats have so far failed to change course in Iraq, and they face pressure from the antiwar base simply to cut off all funds. They have suffered politically when they have forced confrontations with the administration over the continued presence in Iraq. It could be that this time will be different, but do they really want another go-round? If things continue to improve in Iraq, will it be wise to force Democrats either to disappoint the base, or to cut-and-run from an improving Iraq, just a few months before the election? And by then the Democrats will have a presidential nominee. Do they want to force her (or him) to take a position on their attempt to force a surrender? This could wind up being a very costly strategy for Democrats.
