History Forum / General / British History / March 2007

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Accountability Act
When do the troops get the money?

Friday, March 30, 2007
The Wall Street Journal

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.

BINGO! -- DSH

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.

He'll be a sorry candidate if he does run and veterans will speak out
against him and work to defeat him. -- DSH

Mr. Bush has been warning about his veto for weeks, but Democrats have moved
ahead anyway because the vote is really about political theater.

Yes, and playing to the groundlings. -- DSH

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.

Because they are cowards, afraid of their own Loony Left. -- DSH

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.

They are lousy vote-counters and have to be tutored in Modes of Reality. --
DSH

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.

BINGO!  And the Founding Fathers well understood that. -- DSH

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.