Poll: More Americans Want "General Pelosi," Not The Commander In Chief, To Dictate Troop Levels
Here's a key number from this weekend's CBS poll that deserves lots more attention -- because it suggests that Americans just aren't buying the GOP line that they should be put off by Congress' withdrawal timelines because they constitute an unprecedented Congressional "micromanaging" of the war.
Here, for instance, is Karl Rove speaking last night to a GOP gathering in Seattle:
Rove's harshest comments came in regard to the Democrats' plans for Iraq. He ridiculed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her trip to Syria, saying her party is "mandating failure" in Iraq."You know, the troops do not need General Pelosi trying to run the war from Capitol Hill," he said.
Oooooooo, scary! Rove has got the Dems' number! Run for your lives!
Sorry, but it looks as if the public just might rather have "General Pelosi" and other Dem Congressional leaders calling the shots on troop levels than the Commander in Chief himself. Or so this number in the CBS poll suggests:
Currently, President Bush and Congress disagree about what to do about U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Who do you think should have the final say about troop levels in Iraq, the President or Congress?President: 44%
Congress: 49%
The poll also finds that an astonishing 67 percent of respondents think Congress should either allow funding only with a withdrawal timeline (58%) or cut off funding completely (9%).
Hang tough, Dems.
The Republicans, led by Rove, are still fighting the last war, which is hardly surprising given the success they have had spreading their perniciously disingenuous meme, and how out of touch they have become.
Fortunately, however, it would appear that a majority of the American people have tuned them out, and are looking to the Democrats to lead the country out of the morass that Bush has created in Iraq.
This result is not without dangers for Democrats. The damage that has been done is so severe that there may not be any solutions available that won't exact a tremendous cost to our vital national interests in the region.
April 15, 2007 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish they would poll real Congressional options like 'What should Congress do if President Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill with timelines' or 'Should further funding of the Iraq war be blocked' or 'How much more funding would you support in Iraq?' because that gives some indication of how the American people want to proceed.
These polls exist in a country where 2/3 support are required to override a Presidential veto and the Senate has 6 years terms to insulate the institution from the heated popular sentiment of any given day.
Just because 2/3 of the people TODAY want out of Iraq doesn't mean 2/3 of the Senate agree. If you count the re-electon of George W. Bush in '04 as an endorsement of his leadership and '06 as a rebuke of that leadership it would still take another election (4 of 6 years/2 of 3 elections) for the American people to have a chance to vote out those Senators who are out of sync with public opinion.
I wish there was a magic wand to wave to end the war but we don't have a magic wand - we have a Congress and and Executive Branch.
April 15, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The poll finding suggests that Democrats risk a loss of popular support if they send the President a supplemental spending bill without a withdrawal timeline. Rove/Bush will pull out all the stops to create the appearance of Democrats not supporting the troops. Whoever blinks here loses core base support. Hang tough indeed.
April 15, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats can send 1Q of funding with strict accountability and transparency measures and state that the March '08 timeline is still in effect and the will of the American people but the President has no intention of leaving Iraq before he's out of office - his 'as they stand up, we'll stand down' rhetoric is a false. Tell the American people the only way to end the Iraq War is to get 67 votes against it because the President is no longer listening to the American people. It's the truth.
Put a $25 billion dollar bill in front of the voters enough times in a row and you'll get close to 67 votes and 2/3 of the House against the war.
April 15, 2007 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rove says Democrats are "mandating failure" in Iraq. Wrong. We are insisting on a course of action which recognizes the reality of the administration's irretrievable failure in Iraq.
April 15, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Bush as much as admit that he hasn't got the slightest idea how to be Commander in Chief by floating the trial balloon of the "War Czar" position. War Czar is just another way Bush would deflect accountability for his failures and a way to set up another Office of Special Special Plans, complete with stovepiped information, cooked just the way Dick likes it. They're not getting any takers for the job. What happens when the War Czar disagrees with The Decider?
As far as the "micromanaging" charge goes, the recent book by Ali Allawi about the early days of he occupation and the CPA catalogs how the CPA micromanaged reconstruction and the attempts to set up a viable government and agencies. In that case, the micromanaging was done by loyal Bushies who were hired for their loyalty to the GOP and its domestic political agenda, not whether they had a clue about Iraqi culture.
April 15, 2007 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the question of troop levels, I think the poll respondents have it backwards.
Congress' Constitutional job is to decide whether or not we should be at war in the first place. A corollary of that is that it's Congress' role to decide what our war goals and aims are: it's kinda stupid to decide whether to go to war without knowing why.
And Congress has made that decision: our aim is to extract ourselves from Iraq's internal conflicts. To stop being involved in a war there.
If Congress had agreed to continue the war, it would be up to Bush to set troop levels, and Congress' doing so would be interference in an Executive prerogative. But given that it's decided to get us out of the war, and the C-in-C has made it clear that he's not willing to heed the legislative branch on this, a schedule for troop withdrawals is a necessity for the legislative branch to uphold its prerogatives.
April 15, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two fights. The fight to end the war and the political fight. If you can end the war by making Republican Senators look GOOD then that is the best course to take. If you can start to split a few Republican Senators with each quarter of funding you may finally stress their caucus so bad it breaks. Give the GOP a reason to vote against the war on fiscal grounds. I think what some people miss is that it's not just the Republicans who are subject to pressure. Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor are closer to supporting funding with no strings than Feingold-Reid. You need to keep the Democratic caucus unified to have any chance of ending the war and the key indicator isn't public polling - it's the center of gravity of a unified Democratic caucus and the amount GOP votes you can split with legislation that passes. One Q of funding might get 2/3 of the Senate. That's one step down the road to ending the war.
Add some more scandal from the White House and a public break by the likes of Dick Lugar or John Warner and this debate may look very different in 3 months. Passing a timetable anytime January 2008 still leaves the same timetables for withdrawal in play.
April 15, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
The quicker the Congeress asserts its power as the voice of the people RE the Iraq debacle, the less danger there is for the U.S. on down the road.
What the ultra-stupid Dick (Cheney) can not figure out, apparently, is that his/Bush's policies are in danger of pushing the Saudi's/Syrians/Iraqis/Iranis and Pakistanis into a coalition that opposes the U.S. and regards America as their greatest enemy...and, as evidnced by the latest upbraid from Algeria, all of North Africa would tilt toward such a coalition.
The najority of the Pakistani populace is now very much anti-American and it is probably a matter of time until there is a new virulently anti-American government in power there.
If we go on our arrogant unilateral way in the Middle-East, I'm afraid that the next 'terrorist' attack will, indeed, feature nukes (of some sort).
Bush, egocentric little chicken-hawk that he is, is leading this country down a path to disaster. And it does not have to be.
April 15, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush and Cheney are leaving only one avenue open to Congress -- confrontation.
This choice is not made in a vacuum. It is in context of... what?
Nothing I plug into that equation works.
April 15, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a natural and very dangerous tendency to cheerlead on the part of the anti-war movement. It is clear that a solid majority of the country is opposed to a stay the course approach. It is clear that a solid majority would like to find a way to bring the troops home. It is far less clear that there is a consensus or even a solid majority around any single approach to bringing the troops home.
I think three month allocations that force the President to repeatedly veto timelines and force the Repubs to go on record opposing taking action to bring the troops home will really motivate a lot of Repubs to start looking for back room ways to pressure the administration to accept some sort of timelines or limits. The key to bringing the troops home is getting Repubs to confront the electoral consequences of continuing to support Bush.
Many progressives seem oblivious to the checks and balances of the system and oblivious to the fact that much of the public is still not ready to just walk away. It needs to become clear that the surge is not working in order to build a enough public support to force the Repubs to stop obstructing the Dems efforts to end the war.
April 15, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the equation does work if you can bring yourself to believe that Bush and Cheney are quite sincere in their assessment of American danger and how best to deal with it.
Do I agree with the Bush and Cheney assessment? No. But they well confront Congress.
April 16, 2007 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a word, no.
They didn't heed the advice of the study group they commissioned. They seem to be subscribing to winning by attrition, the same nonsense strategy that failed in Vietnam. In the absence of clearly-stated goals, that is the only thing I can conclude.
Bush/Cheney are all process with no progress. All form and no content.
Additionally, Bush/Cheney reveal their awareness that the country doesn't support their war in Iraq every time they impugn the patriotism of those who disagree with them.
Since neither of them had the "stomach for war" themselves, they should not expect Americans to enlist and fight now.
It requires assent and consent by/of the People of the United States to execute wars in our name. If that assent/consent is given as the result of lies from our politicians, it makes no sense to expect continuing support from citizens. I guess one can expect it. But it's not practical to rely upon such delusional expectations.
April 16, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink