This is a twofer topic really. Over the weekend, I ended up doing some reading on Murthas proposal to regulate the Iraq war in such a way that either we do it right, or begin withdraw operations.

(Interesting approach!)

That leads to the second, which is the greater role of congress. The traditional view is one of checks and balances in that the President makes the policy decisions with Congress handling funding. Both of them balance each other out in that complete power is denied both of them.

Murthas proposal is right in line with the traditional view in that it forces the President to act in a responsible manner, being checked by limits on his funding, barring additional budget appropriations and or legislation to change the game.

Of course, this has led to the idea being put forward about congress really just being more of a rubber stamp that works hard to get the funding necessary for whatever the President wants to do.

(Also interesting in terms of framing issues)

Nobody I know wants to just keep grinding away in Iraq. Plenty of people either want to just win, or get out. Either this mess has a point, or is pointless.

IMHO, Murthas proposal is spot on in that it more or less forces congress and the Bush administration to start to act in a decisive way and lays a solid founcation for accountability, all in one package.

In particular, it demands our criteria for military engagements be enforced; namely, training on proper equipment, provisioning of said equipment to troops in theatre and insuring they have the downtime necessary for their well being.

Given those criteria are met, the troops will be funded. If not, they won't be.

I'm hoping this sees greater acceptance because we then will see accountability in that the President is actually gonna have to ask for and justify any further escalation, and face the growing reality of his over extension of a rapidly tiring military force.

Both of these things are as good of a measure as any as to the viability of this engagement and of it's general support from the people.

Boils down to either sell us on the war and let's really get into it and win, or suck it up and realize it's over and stop the bleeding!

Missing, a lot of food for thought, a heaping helping. "Either sell us on the war and let's really get into it and win, or suck it up and realize it's over." You nailed it.

My first impression is that it is very important for Congress to begin to show the Executive branch that it also has muscle in funding and policy decisions. I feel that this might be arguing over a bucket of sand instead of the beach, but it is a step in the right direction.

Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that this proposal will negatively affect the troops is not living in reality. From a money standpoint, it is purely token and will not affect the funding to our theater of operations at all. Not a dime.

What it will do is insure that any future fighting forces are well equipped, well-trained in all aspects of the machines and machinations of this conflict and have the opportunity to be Americans again after a year long tour in hell. This gives the 19 year old grunt a chance to live long enough to hoist a toast to peace and gives our military men and women with families some real time with their kids.

I believe that anything that preserves American lives is worth exploring. Steps that Congress took to shine a little light, have some debate and exercise some scrutiny, have all been met -- up to this point -- with a great deal of resistance. Our lawmakers are going to have to make even stronger proposals that include real solutions for a conclusion to this war. It cannot stay an argument, it has to evolve into an idea, and maybe a solution.

Jack Murtha is a decorated Veteran, a passionate lawmaker and a steadfast Constitution-hugger. Listen:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7396160

It's going to be tough sailing to get anything through the Senate that limits Bush's ability to conduct the Iraq war. We just saw that only 56 Senators out of the required 60 (to end a filibuster) voted just to debate a weak, non-binding resolution that would have had no effect on the war or military operations in Iraq. Seven Republicans supported it probably just for posturing for their 2008 re-election campaigns. When it comes to actually limiting Bush's actions you're probably going to get fewer than even 56, not more. So whatever Murtha does in the House isn't going to mean a lot.

Of course, we could wind up with a showdown over the budget like Clinton had with the Republican Congress at the end of 1995, but you can see how that turned out. The executive branch simply has more leeway in that kind of fight. It's a lot harder to unite so many members of congress against the executive branch. Truly, Democrats should accept that their power now regarding Iraq is limited to no longer rubberstamping Bush's Iraq proposals and trying to put the heat on the Senate for 2008, when 2/3 of the Senators up for re-election will be Republicans. Sadly, I fear that nothing positive will happen in Iraq until January 20, 2009, when we have a new president and hopefully a few more votes in the Senate to give the Congress enough power to rein in the Iraq fiasco.

Andrew

Check out this guy!

http://petty-larseny.blogspot.com/2007/02/instant-sure-fire-politically-viable.h tml

This is one of those, "Duh!" posts. The moment you read it, you say, "Of course, this makes perfect sense!"

Think about it: WMD's gone, Saddam Gone, Government Installed, etc...

Mission Accomplished, time to move on. This reinforces what I was thinking this morning nicely, IMHO.

Andrew, I agree.

But I think it's totally worth it to try this kind of thing several times. There is some accountability in that for the GOP that makes it all worthwhile.

Doing this is also highly likely to have an effect in Iran as well. If congress asserts itself in this regard, the whole rubberstamp bit won't get much traction. Might prevent an engagement with Iran.

The Democrats simply shouldn't waste much more time on this. Get it on the record that the Senate Republicans blocked meaningful action on Iraq. Target vulnerable Republican Senators who blocked it in the coming elections, making it clear that they have stood in the way of fixing the Iraq mess. The House has at least gone on record by passing their non-binding resolution as opposing Bush.

Now, they need to move on to other business. If they consume the entire 2-year session filibustering Iraq and getting nothing else done, the Democrats will get thrown out in 2008.

Andrew

Yep. Agreed again.

I would hold this at the ready for later on though. It's a wonderful reality check, given it's not over done.

In that respect, doing this also brings a powerful leverage tool for actually getting that other business done.

Hmmm... let's see!

Fixing Patriot Act
Dealing with Wage issues
Health Care
Unions
Voting Reform
Ongoing Ethics reform

Lots to do.

On the other hand, the minority in the Senate is going to be able to block lots of this stuff, too. The Democrats aren't going to get all of it done. They'll have to compromise on something to get some of these bills passed and unfortunately, not pushing Iraq may be one of those things.

Andrew

That's fine with me.

I would much rather see some portion of the necessary things get done, rather than not see any of it. All of that is perfectly defensible where the next election cycle is concerned, and the results of this cycle will do us some good.

Our world reputation will improve as well. Other nations will see us working hard to get the right things done. Sadly it all takes time --perhaps too much time, but at least the effort will be seen for what it is. As long as the majority of our government is working hard for solid change, I think this will be all good for us as well.

I like what Reid and Pelosi did with this Iraq resolution! If they are gonna be blocking stuff, make them do it on a Saturday over and over. That will get a lot of attention, allow the Dems to frame the issues solid and let the Sunday talkers document the heck out of it for '08!

I agree with you guys. Sometimes it will be enough for the Demos to say, "we tried" and move on. The big picture problems are mostly domestic, as you pointed out, KSKD, or they at least affect most Americans. We could expand your list to include balancing trade deficits -- especially with China, the drilling in the ANWAR, the complex issues surrounding immigration, children in poverty, the elderly... ooof, a really big plate.

They cannot waste time on dead ends. I think the Democrats need to establish an offensive and let the GOP backpedal for a while. Every last member is scared of what this war means if it is still raging late into next year. At this rate, don't you think it will be at least that long, even with a plan?

Also, with '08 looming, both parties need to get the table set for a new administration to have success. For either side to achieve that goal, they have to pull this group apart at the seams with more and more indictments. At the same time, putting miles of distance between them and this mountainous stinking shitpile of failure.