Politically, it’s a no-brainer.
The Democrats hold the majority in both houses of Congress largely because of voter disgust with the war in Iraq.
A USA Today/Gallup poll taken last weekend found only 12 percent of respondents selected the option to “send more troops” from among four proposals offered for dealing with Iraq. A majority of respondents – 54 percent – said they wanted the troops to come home within 12 months, if not immediately.
So I’m thinking that with this groundswell of anti-war sentiment and the president calling for more troops, the Democrats will do what Republicans would in the same situation.
I’m figuring they’ll rev up fear by talking about how sending more soldiers to Iraq would weaken the nation’s defense against terrorists. I’m counting on them to appeal to everyone’s patriotism by suggesting we should never send the brave men and women in uniform on a suicide mission. I’m expecting them to shut off the money for new troops, and maybe even impeach somebody, just for yuks.
So far, it’s not happening.
Instead here’s what Sen. Ken Salazar said Wednesday about the president’s proposal to send more troops to Iraq: “I am hopeful the nation can come together in the weeks ahead to address this critical national security issue.”
It’s the old, cowering, hope-for-the- best strategy.
Meanwhile, Rep. Diana DeGette, who was among those who voted against authorizing the president to invade Iraq four years ago and who has plenty of constituents who support immediate withdrawal of troops, dissed the idea of increasing troop deployments unequivocally.
But she stopped short of endorsing a cutoff of funds like Congress did in 1974 to end the Vietnam War.
“In no circumstances should we escalate troops,” said the six-term Denver Democrat. “It’s three-and-a-half years too late for that, and too many lives have already been lost.”
But the problem with stanching the flow of funds for the war, she said, is that as long as there are soldiers on the ground in Iraq, they need supplies.
“We don’t want to abandon our troops. We need to get them home.”
The point may well come when Congress refuses to fund a troop increase, but we’re not there yet, she said.
As for alternatives, she said the Democrats are “holding the president’s feet to the fire, demanding to know how he’s going to turn over the reins to the Iraqis and get our troops out.”
Fair enough. Fulminate away.
They always can ratchet up the pressure later.
For now, while they wait to see what the polls do after the president’s speech, the skittish Democrats are trying to gain a bit of traction on the easier stuff.
The first-100-hours campaign to pass tougher ethics standards, raise the minimum wage, pass DeGette’s bill supporting stem-cell research and all the rest continues apace.
“My bill will pass the House with a solid majority,” said DeGette, who expects it to come up for a vote today. The debate over the war “is not taking away from the first-100-hours agenda. The new speaker is a mom. She’s very good at multitasking.”
All this shoring up of voting records and advancing issues will mean nothing, though, if the Democratic majority can’t find a way out of Iraq.
It’s what the voters sent them there to do.
Everyone from former Secretary of State Colin Powell to Gen. John
Abizaid, senior commander in the Middle East, has come out against the troop buildup.
Even Sen. Gordon Smith, a Republican, has called Bush’s Iraq strategy “absurd” and said that sending 20,000 more troops there is pointless. “We’ve done 20,000 before, and it makes no difference.”
Tonight, a rally of families of Colorado military men and women who oppose sending more troops to Iraq is scheduled in Civic Center.
This is not a tough call.
Diane Carman’s column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. She can be reached at 303-954-1489 or dcarman@denverpost.com.
