Persistently Static Iraq

The Bush Administrations policy on Iraq has remained unchanged for one simple reason, Bush's views have remained unchanged and the Democrats lack the necessary 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate to over ride a veto.

Like it or not, Bush is in control of our military and our state department. As long as he continues to get funding, he will continue to enjoy the discretion to run the war the way he wants to. Its his administrations policy and he believes that it is the most appropriate one. He doesn't have to worry about getting reelected so there is little reason to be swayed by public opinion other than out of concern for his parties performance in the next election. Even though polls show overwhelming disapproval of Bush and that the majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the war, I believe Bush's popularity will have very little effect of a conservatives allegiance to the Republican party or their preference for Republican politicians. All the Republican party stands to loose due to displeasure with Bush's policy are some of the independent voters, but even they could be maintained with a Republican nomination who is moderate enough and who effectively distances himself from Bush.

The only way that the Democrats could get Bush to change his policy is by continuing to pass funding bills that contain troop withdraw time tables, which Bush would veto, until all of the previously allocated funds run out. This would force Bush to make some tough decisions. He could try to maintain the current forces on a much lower budget or he could do the responsible thing and bring them home instead of leaving them their with inadequate resources. However, this course of action by the Democrats would hurt them in the next election because of the all to familiar notion that cutting funding for the war is sinominous with abandoning the troops.

Compromise through Party Irresponsibility

Yesterday, two democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they would break ranks with the party and support Mukasey's nomination for Attorney General. Despite grave concerns over Mukasey's refusal to declare waterboarding an illegal and torturous method of interrogation (which given the fact that the specifics of the technique are top secret and therefore unavailable for his review and comment, isn't all that out of line), Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer were able to find some common ground with Mukasey. They were confident that he would maintain a high degree of independence and would abide by and uphold the law in spite of pressures from Bush. In a closed door meet with Schumer, Mukasey said that if Congress chose to enact a law banning "enhanced" interrogation techniques, Bush would have to follow it. Schumer stated that "He flatly told me that the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law" and that "He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law."

Had the two Senators been tied to the decrees of their parties leadership, this process would have taken a little longer and might have resulted in Bush simply nominating another candidate who is just as unappealing to the Democrats. This delay would only have served to give ammo to President Bush and prevented the Dems from focusing their efforts in an area where they could have an actual impact. Instead, these Democrats were able to compromise and choose their battles. They now can shift their focus to activities that will genuinely affect the actions and efforts of the White House, like passing a law making water boarding illegal. What ever your views on the legality of water boarding are, the fact is the Senate Intelligence Committee has reviewed the technique and approved it. Whether or not I, or anyone else, thinks it's illegal is irrelevant. It's not illegal until Congress passes legislation making it so, or the Courts find it repugnant to existing law. Neither of which has happened.