Untitled Document
President George W. Bush, who has never chosen to
take responsibility for addressing the mess he created in Iraq, has now
been given permission by Congress to finish his presidency without doing
so. After the U.S. House voted 268-155 to provide $162
billion in additional “emergency” funding for the Iraq war on
June 19 (and the Senate followed last week, voting 92-6), Bush was
effectively assured that he will be able to finish his presidency and head
back to Texas without taking any steps to conclude a conflict that has
killed and permanently disabled tens of thousands of Americans, killed and
dislocated millions of Iraqis, and destabilized one of the most complex and
dangerous regions in the world.
“The president basically gets a blank check to
dump this war on the next president,” says Massachusetts Congressman
Jim McGovern, who voted against letting Bush off the hook — and
against setting up a situation where the next commander-in-chief, be he
Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, will be “a war
president.”
Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, another
“no” voter, explained the frustration of those who opposed a
measure that ultimately passed with Republican and Democratic support by
members of the House who are no more willing than Bush to take
responsibility for ending a war that should never have begun. “We have lost 4,103 of America’s best and
brightest young people, another 30,000 are grievously wounded and will
require care for much of their lives, and we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.
We have built over 800 schools, nearly 5,000 water and sewer projects and
over 1,000 roads and bridges — in Iraq — while gas and food
prices go through the roof here, home foreclosures wreak havoc on American
families, and our infrastructure is in a shambles. Enough is enough! One
day of spending in Iraq would finance the entire reconstruction of the
I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis,” said Ellison, a first-term Democrat who
has been meticulous about opposing moves to continue the war. “I will
not vote for more American taxpayers’ money going to Iraq until that
proposal contains deadlines and timetables for the safe withdrawal of our
troops.”
That’s what a congressman who takes his duties
seriously sounds like. Unfortunately, that’s not what the majority of
House members sound like. The measure was opposed by 151 Democrats —
including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Appropriations Committee chair Dave Obey
— and four Republicans (Californian John Campbell, Tennessee’s
John Duncan, Arizona’s Floyd Flake, and Texan Ron Paul). Voting for the Iraq spending hike passed were 188
Republicans and 80 Democrats. The votes of those 80 pro-war Democrats were
definitional: If House Democrats had simply held together as a caucus, this
“blank check” for more killing, maiming, dislocation, and mass
destruction would not have been written. Unfortunately, a number of top Democrats in the House
— including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Majority Whip James
Clyburn, D-S.C., Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., and Chief
Deputy Whip Ron Kind, a Wisconsin Democrat who has served as a point-man in
the chamber for the Democratic Leadership Council — voted with the
Bush administration. Democrats were elected in 2006 to end the war in
Iraq. When more than one-third of the House Democratic Caucus supports
maintaining the war into the next presidency, it is not just individual
Democrats but the party as a whole that is failing. Any large party caucus in a legislative chamber has
mavericks. After all, four Republicans just broke with the Bush lockstep to
oppose the additional war founding — and two of them (Duncan and
Paul) are longtime and consistent critics of military misadventures abroad.
But when one out of every three members of a caucus
— including much of its leadership team — votes to help the
president of an opposition party maintain a war that most American oppose,
we’re not looking at a case of leaders allowing mavericks to let off
steam.
We’re looking at a case of a Democratic Party
that is dramatically better at mouthing anti-war platitudes than exercising
any sort of leadership.
John Nichols is the associate editor of the Capital Times of Madison,
Wis., and Washington correspondent for The
Nation magazine. He co-wrote “Who’ll unplug Big
Media?”
in the June 19 edition of Illinois Times.
This article appears in Jun 26 – Jul 2, 2008.
