Bizzaro World Congress

The other day I wrote that the Democrats in Congress were about to throw in a withdrawal schedule for Iraq in the defense spending bill. Well, according to The National Journal they’ve abandoned that tac, for the moment, in favor of larding up the bill with important social spending;

Democratic leaders considered making the war measure a vehicle for additional stimulus efforts, such as an expansion of unemployment benefits, but aides said any stimulus package would likely be limited at best. The aides contended Republican lawmakers would be hard-pressed to oppose the domestic spending provisions that do end up being considered.

Despite the veto threat, the leaders are still considering combining the administration’s request with an additional $70 billion requested for the first several months of FY09. Majority Leader Hoyer acknowledged Wednesday that the measure would exceed Bush’s request, but declined to be more specific.

“I am sure it will [top Bush’s cap], contrary to the administration’s sending tablets down from the mount,” Hoyer said.

At least, the Democrats realize that their withdrawal timetable inside the defense bill is a loser for them across America, but that doesn’t stop the whackier elements from making demands;

 Anti-war Democrats continue to push for inclusion of tough policies aimed at ending the war, but they have been largely shut out of the negotiations over the bill. Out of Iraq Caucus leaders Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters of California met Wednesday with House Speaker Pelosi to make their case. Before the meeting, Waters said she wanted a separate vote on a “fully funded withdrawal from Iraq” provision, but such a vote is unlikely.

While Democratic leaders are expected to hold separate votes on war policy and spending for domestic programs in addition to the specific war funding, leadership sources said they will not include withdrawal timetables and other controversial war provisions.

What else can we do make the  defense bill a hot potato? How about some hate crime legislation? (Star-Tribune link)

[Carl Levin, a] senior Senate Democrat said Tuesday that he wants to use a major defense policy bill to expand federal hate-crimes laws to protect gays, bring troops home from Iraq, and force Baghdad to pay more toward reconstruction costs.

The effort would raise the flag on major issues favored by the party’s base. But only the reconstruction provision is considered to have a chance at passing — and even that proposal’s prospects would depend heavily on Republican cooperation.

Of course no story about the Democrats in Congress would be complete today without mentioning their reaction to General Petraeus’ promotion (International Herald Tribune link);

 Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, who has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, said the next president would inherit the problems in Iraq and elsewhere. “Our ground forces’ readiness and the battles in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda in Pakistan have suffered as a result of the current costly Iraq strategy,” he said. “These challenges will require fresh, independent and creative thinking and, if directed to by a new president, a commitment to implementing major changes in strategy.”

So, let’s name Harry Reid to the post and see how he handles it. Of course, if President Bush named Reid to command CentCom, Reid would probably oppose it in the Senate and call himself a failure. The Democrats require fresh, independent thinking.

Other Democratic senators issued statements signaling that Petraeus’s confirmation hearings could prompt debate over American strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“As he begins the confirmation process to become the next commander of Centcom, Petraeus must answer the most important question we face, which is not whether we are winning in Iraq, but why we are not defeating Al Qaeda,” said Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Why we’re not defeating al Qaeda? Where has Russ been the last few months?

And Senator Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said that while he had “great respect” for the general, ” Petraeus’s mission will no longer be just Iraq — it will be the entire region, including the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area where those who actually attacked us on 9/11 have regrouped, where our ambassador to Iraq acknowledged to me that Al Qaeda is a bigger threat, and where we do not have enough troops because of Iraq.”

But Biden was calling for more troops in Iraq right up until the president sent more troops, now he says we’re undermanned in Afghanistan.

I wonder if the Democrats in Congress know what year it is.

Category: Politics