Lugar And Warner Amendment A Tough Challenge To Bush? Not So Much.
Today GOP Senators Richard Lugar and John Warner got a bunch of news organizations very excited by submitting an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would require the President to submit alternate plans for Iraq. It is being billed by the press as a "tough challenge" to the President and his war.
But in many ways, this amendment – which you can read in our TPM Document Collection – is just a bad joke. It would require Bush to come up with a plan to reduce the troop presence in Iraq – but he wouldn't be required to come up with it until October, which of course is after Petraeus' report is due. This is in keeping with exactly what Bush wants, of course. He's asked Congress not to act until he can parade General Petraeus before the cameras in September to ask for yet more time. So it's not hard to imagine that this amendment could actually end up helping Bush, by letting him say to other antsy Republicans: "The very respectable and serious Warner and Lugar are skeptical of the war, and even they think in all their seriousness that Congress shouldn't act until after Petraeus speaks. So cool out."
Lugar himself gave away the game in his floor speech today, in which he actually characterized his own plan as follows:
I am hopeful that my counsel and that of many others who are weighing in with the President will lead to policy changes. But I have no illusions that what the Senate does during the amendment process to this Defense Authorization bill is now likely to affect the President’s decision about his strategy during the next two months.
It really doesn't get any clearer than that.
There are no specifics in this amendment to dictate what numbers of troops would need to be withdrawn, or by when. And the amendment actually contains this hilariously toothless line: "We recommend that the President and the Administration design plans to be executable beginning not later than December 31, 2007."
We recommend that the President do this? In other words, "Please, Mr. President, can you hurry up and start talking about pulling out? We're getting politically killed out here – pretty please"?
In other words, this amendment is exactly in keeping with the President's argument that Congress shouldn't dictate war policy lest it be "tying the hands of our generals" or "micromanaging the war" or whatever bogus and vacuous phrase you want to use.
Look, don't get me wrong. There are good things about having GOP Senators come out and introduce things like this. It moves the debate. It gives war opponents more leverage. It does increase pressure on Bush to do something. And Warner and Lugar appear to be genuine surge skeptics who want to see some sort of change of course. But let's be clear about this. The President has said he's staying in Iraq until he "wins." This amendment won't do a thing to force him to do otherwise, and in at least one way could conceivably help him buy time until the The Petraeus Show comes to town.
Repubs in Congress just don't do anything that challenges Bush. They never have and never will. The Immigration Bill was a fluke - it was so rushed, so bad, that virtually every side of that debate was opposed to it.
We keep seeing headlines about certain Repub senators saying they might vote against Bush on the Iraq fiasco, but that just isn't going to happen in any way the actually helps get us out of Iraq. These are people who put the Repub party above the country, so they have no interest in actually making Bush look bad.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 13, 2007 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they introduced it and are now booked on This Week on Sunday to discuss it.
July 13, 2007 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatdya expect?
Republicans are all talk. This is nothing new. In fact, we should expect whenever they sound like they're against Bush, they're not.
What's sad is the Times falls for it, with the headline on the site all day. And, as Newsie says, the teevee people fall for it, too.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
July 13, 2007 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to believe that the Lugar-Warner amendment is anything more than window dressing. The intent is actually to lead-block for the President's plan to stave off debate on the surge until after General Petraeus' "final report" in September while simultaneously spoon-feeding the press sound-bites of "tough Republican opposition." When the '08 elections come around there will be scads of Republicans saying that they voted for (or supported) withdrawl from Iraq by virtue of having signed on to the toothless amendment. Lugar and Warner are wiley old hands. The amendment is deft politics.
July 13, 2007 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing, just amazing! They wouldn't put there name to a Democrat bill, because of party loyalty.
But they did it twice! Then they want to snub there nose's at Democrats and put there own amendment/bill to save face and show that they DO want to the troops home with "bench" marks, etc..
But then, just this week they filer buster the Amendment to show party comes before troops.
What a bunch of lame senators! They are more concerned with their legacy, than what is right for the troops and the American people.
There is something in this motive...I don't know what, but its bigger than just the language in the amendment..What is their motive now, when so many other forms of amendements/bills have come forth, and each time they wine, wine about the Democrats not supporting the troops, etc...
This is the biggest blunder the Rebublicans have put forth, when they had 5+ years to act, doing something in congress, but only supported the administration in every way they could, and now they want justice?
We the American people see and have heard what you republicans have done to this patriotic troop thing...you never-ever had the troops in mind, only your legacy and loyalty to party.
We the people know you have ignored us, its our friends, family, and people we don't know that you sent to fight a war that YOU OWN!
So, if its broken, you own IT!!!!
July 13, 2007 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The party that got us into this won't get us out. What we have now is a sham debate. It's theatre, meant to convince the American people and the media that smart guys are thinking about this, really hard.
In the end, they'll conclude, after giving it much deliberation, that we're winning and just need more time.
Was it over a month ago that Josh pointed out that Bush sees our troop commitment in Iraq as analogous to our continued presence along the Korean DMZ?
If the Republicans get their way, no matter what we're saying now, we will all be posting on this blog in 2030, using retinal chips that read and post our thoughts, about why there are still US troops in Iraq.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 14, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what Lugar and Warner are really doing is pandering to the base, here? The anti-warGOP constituency within the states of those Senators must be clamoring for them to do something and have asserted that the status quo is not OK. That is what it sounds like.
July 14, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so true, look at how McCain, Spector and even Hagel, raise our hopes as if they are going to act sensible on principle, only to in the end capitulate when it is time to vote. Their votes seldom match their sound bite statements. Do you think these folks think their words are sufficient to mask their deeds?. Perception is more important maybe than reality to them?
Notice too, how the headline for the GOP is 'tough on challenge' with their Iraq amendment while the Dems headline in the NYTimes is 'pandering to the base' for their withdrawal amendment'....the media is very biased in their reporting on the two parties.
July 14, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear that they are going over the cliff for Bush.
Dems: hang this albatross around their neck. There's nothing in it for the Dems to be the get-along-gang with the neo-fascist GOP.
Bush and Cheney have wrecked everything they have touched, from Bush's many business failures to Cheney at the helm of Halliburton when he thought it was a good idea to buy asbestos-liability-plagued Dresser Industries, to Iraq; their party will be next. Watch out for the false-flag event that they will use to justify an even bigger fiasco in Iran. They played with loaded dice to justify their Iraq catastrophe. They are gamblers on a losing streak hoping for the next roll of the dice to set it all right and the GOP keeps extending the line of credit.
The Party of Lincoln is now the Party of Bush.
July 14, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Warner and Lugar proposed is a farce. It is an amendment insisting that Bush start thinking about what he might want to do sometime after the end of October, and the Congress asks that he please begin to think about this as soon as he wants to do so. Wow! That is a real rebellion, huh?
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 14, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...we will all be posting on this blog in 2030.."
Thanks for reminding me. I must put a clause in my will insisting on a computer, with DSL, in my coffin. Plan ahead!
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 14, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy... I must insist that you don't ever die. I like you!
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 14, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mixed Metaphor Advice for Bush: If you are hip deep in alligators stop digging.
You are already the President who 'lost' Iraq. Your only choice at this point is how many troops you want lost on your watch.
July 14, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats must do their job.
This problem belongs to the Democrats because they asked--no begged--for the opportunity to take it on. If they couldn't handle it, they shouldn't have made promises that they must have known they couldn't keep. They have failed miserably.
August 24, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately that isn't necessarily how this war will be viewed historically. The president is kicking this thing down the road precisely because he knows that the line can be blurred. Just as the policymakers who committed us to Vietnam are not necessarily remembered as the ones who 'lost' Vietnam, Bush and the 107th Congress will not necessarily be remembered as the ones who 'lost' Iraq. The president and the Congress who finally have a hand in pulling the last soldier out of Iraq (if that day ever comes) will share in Bush's loss. Bush started it, but someone else will inevitably finish it. They'll all be blamed and Bush knows it.
August 24, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink