Accountability Act
When do the troops get the money?
Friday, March 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Congress leaves for Easter recess today, with Democrats congratulating themselves for having endorsed, by the narrowest of margins, "a deadline" for withdrawal from Iraq. The press corps is also praising their "cohesion." Wonderful. Now that MoveOn.org is happy, maybe Congress will finally fund the troops.
Democrats are calling this, in short form, the "Iraq Accountability Act," but the key word in that construction is the last one. This is all an act. This week the Senate joined the House in passing a "deadline" for Iraq withdrawal that Members know has no chance of becoming law. President Bush has promised a veto, and the eyelash victories in both houses show that his veto will be sustained with ease.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could have filibustered the Senate version, but he chose to let the majority proceed in order to speed along the inevitable so the troops won't have to wait even longer to get their money. Democrats offered their deadline language, which passed 50-48 when Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska shifted his vote to endorse what Senator John McCain rightly called an enforced "surrender" date. Once upon a time Mr. Hagel voted for the war, but now he's against it, at least until he changes his mind again. Such conviction is sure to impress voters if he ever makes up his mind about running for President.
Mr. Bush has been warning about his veto for weeks, but Democrats have moved ahead anyway because the vote is really about political theater. Democrats need to appease their antiwar base, and the "benchmarks" and "deadline" lingo is the minimum that MoveOn.org and friends would accept. None of this is real "accountability," however, because Democrats lack the nerve to truly stop the war by defunding it. Having criticized the bill at first, MoveOn.org and the antiwar caucus turned around and endorsed this theatrical fallback once they realized they lacked the votes to stop the war.
This vote allows Democrats to claim they opposed General David Petraeus's plan to stabilize Baghdad, even as they let him fight. The troops must be pleased with that indulgence. If the plan fails, as Democrats expect, Mr. Bush will get the blame. If it succeeds, well, they figure no one will remember their pessimism a year from now. Either way, "accountability" is the last word to use for this exercise.
Meanwhile, the troops on the line are waiting for their money, and they'll have to wait a while longer. When they return from their holiday, House and Senate leaders will have to "reconcile" their bills, which could take more weeks. Because the bills are packed with some $21 billion in pork, as well as differing versions of a minimum wage increase, the Members will be fiddling over their domestic priorities rather than financing the war. Then they can finally present their "message" to the White House for Mr. Bush to veto, at which point they'll get to start all over.
The spectacle qualifies as a textbook example of why Congress can't be trusted to micromanage, much less lead, a war. It's a committee of Lilliputians whose main contribution is to tie down the President so that his policy fails. Few bills deserve a veto as much as this one. And once Mr. Bush dispatches it, we hope Congress will fulfill the one war power it does have, which is to appropriate enough money so our troops can accomplish their mission.
opinionjournal.com |
