In one of his final entries before moving to Salon, Glenn Greenwald addressed the uncomfortable fact of how the Democrats are going rather softly on the war/occupation of Iraq. As Russ Feingold explained in a Daily Kos diary announcing his opposition to the Warner/Levin "anti-surge" resolution:
We owe it to ourselves to demand action that will bring about change in Iraq, not take us back to a failed status quo.
Democrats in Congress have seemingly forgotten that we were in power when Congress authorized the President to go to war in Iraq. . . . We also have to remember that in November, Americans sent over 30 new Democratic Representatives and eight new Democratic Senators plus a very progressive Independent to fix a failed Iraq policy. The public is craving change in Iraq and a resolution like this one will not cut it. Now is the time for strong action.
In fact, GG cites an opinion piece from John Yoo of all people (co-written with attorney Lynn Chu, who gets top billing):
[B]ehind all the bluster, the one thing all the major Democratic proposals have in common is that they are purely symbolic resolutions, with all the force of a postcard. . . .The fact is, Congress has every power to end the war — if it really wanted to. It has the power of the purse. . . . Not only could Congress cut off money, it could require scheduled troop withdrawals, shrink or eliminate units, or freeze weapons supplies. It could even repeal or amend the authorization to use force it passed in 2002. . . .
The truth is that the Democrats in Congress would rather sit back and let the president take the heat in war than do anything risky. That way they get to prepare for the next election while pointing fingers of blame and spinning conspiracy theories.
This sort of thing does not sit too well -- Yoo is the guy who wrote books discussing how the President didn't need no damn Congress to use force and move around the military. So, this talk about "amending" the authorization is a bit too cute, isn't it? Likewise, if the resolution was "purely symbolic, with all the force of a postcard" why all the concern, the need to filibuster, the remarks from up high that it helps the enemy? Of course, "Congress" includes the Senate, which does not have a Republican-free filibuster. In fact, even though Lieberman seems not to be able to toss the Senate to the dogs, he still holds the balance of power vote-wise. And, cutting funding with troops in the field is not exactly easy politically.
Finally, the last paragraph is clearly blather, underlining the not to be taking on face value nature of the first. It is downright amusing that "pointing fingers of blame" is supposed to be a bad thing or something. The implication, obviously, is that there isn't any. Clearly, yes, it is not so easy to act, and just being on record against the President matters. This is why we have Yoo sympathizers writing editorials talking about such resolutions being constitutionally troubling "no confidence" votes or something. I know we shouldn't give too much (if any) respect to this guy, but GG quoted him. The two also voices sentiments shared by some others, though some of them are johnny-come-latelys, suddenly seeing the light, and wondering why the Dems aren't truly serious?!
Still, his arguments sound somewhat credible. This is because they are up to a point -- taking away the b.s. Congress can do more. Many tend to be risk-adverse, including my own senators (including Chucky Schumer who is on record thinking Iraq will go away by '08). But, resolutions, strong oversight, clearly turning the conversation a different direction, and other things (e.g., Dodd put forth a measure to save habeas, hearings are in place dealing with largely unregulated contractors, etc.) matter. We also have to face up to the limits in Congress as well. But, defeatism is not the way to go. Sen. Feingold has the right sentiment -- the fear of failure is a pretty lame reason not to try.
And, the failures will generally be worth the effort (consider his censure proposal), partially since would underline the reprehensible nature of those who block them. Let the taunts of Yoos embolden us. Getting out of Iraq is the ultimate goal. We cannot allow ourselves to forget that, even though immediate reachable victories and threats (e.g., Iran) might fill our heads. The election suggests we stopped digging the hole. It's time not only to raise a few feet, but get out of the thing entirely. It's possible.
Let's demand it.