« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Advice for the President: how to handle the antiwar Democrats.

No, really.

I read with some interest this article which describes a supposed Blue-on-Blue fight looming over the upcoming reduction of troops:

Congressional Democrats’ misgivings about President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq has set the stage for potentially major conflicts between Capitol Hill and the White House in the months ahead.

Obama’s announcement Friday that he will leave between 35,000 and 50,000 troops in Iraq after August 2010 brought lukewarm responses from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Both leaders have publicly questioned the decision to leave that many troops there indefinitely.

Also causing consternation is the president’s decision to finish the drawdown in 18 months. As a candidate, Obama had promised a complete withdrawal within 16 months.

Being a kind and generous soul who understands that we’re all in this together, on behalf of the neoconservative movement I am here to offer the President a little advice on how to keep antiwar legislators in line. We did it for eight years, after all; two of which were years where our party was ostensibly not the one running Congress. Heck, our best work was done between 2006-2008. So you can believe that we know that we’re talking about.

I know that you’re a busy man, Mr. President – and besides, there’s a proper snowfall in DC right now, so your kids are probably being a little anxious to get some snowball fights in with their dad – so I’ll sum up the advice quickly: just steamroller over them. There’s no need to compromise on this, given that you’ll win the fight in Congress and all of these people are depending on you to help them in the 2012 elections. If this sounds quite like “I won” to you, it isn’t, quite: when you said that earlier this year it was to people who you were trying to woo. Now you’re just establishing your authority. Not really the same thing at all, now that I think of it.

So, what you do is this. You call in Pelosi, Reid, and Rep. Woolsey of the Out of Iraq caucus and have them come to your office. Once they’re all there you get them some coffee and gently tell them that you are the Commander in Chief, and it’s your decision to dictate where the troops go, not theirs. This will be an excellent place, by the way, for you to inform them that the War Powers Act is actually unconstitutional after all (a fun tradition that every President has observed since they passed the blessed thing); that should go over well with the tandem observation that you expect that the troop reduction and spending plans to be passed through Congress with all deliberate speed. When they give you a bit of snark over that, observe idly that their caucuses are not going to want to get into a fight with the President. Then you look over at Woolsey and ask her to remind you what her Congressional District is, again.

That should work. Pelosi and Reid are professionals with no skin in the antiwar game, so they’ll know when to back off rather than give Boehner and McConnell the chance to look good with the American people. Woolsey… is, well, an antiwar Democrat. That means that it’s all about the sweet, sweet kiss of the lash for her: she doesn’t actually want to win, she just wants to be smacked around a bit and feel all self-righteous about it. So I guess that you’ll have to indulge her; the extra thrill of having it be by one of her own should give the thing a certain extra frisson.

I know, I know: it’s a heck of a thing to run a government like it was a S&M club, but it’s your caucus, not mine. I’m just telling you how to get them to do the things that you want.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

COMMENTS

  • IJB

    And I wouldn’t put it past them.

    Maybe Obama knew that Congress would never fund his request in the first places, and the whole thing was Kabuki theater from the start.

    I wouldn’t put past anyone involved.

    In any case, I wouldn’t put past Congressional Dems to just defund the thing – what with the coming massive deficits, and the fact that they already smell Obama’s weakness, it seems like a serious possibility.

  • mallcopsaysno

    The war in Iraq is winding down. What’s the point of quibbling over 16 or 18 months? Cui bono here? Is this an attempt at asserting Congressional authority? An attempt at pandering to the antiwar movement? Bush rolled over Congress while in a theoretically adversarial relationship and despite the fact most of the country had already grown weary of him. Obama, popular as he is, will roll over them with even less effort. And who is the antiwar movement these days that anyone in power should care to try to score points with them?

    This conflict makes no sense.

  • Praying

    nt

  • seymourkleerly

    If America is supposed to be a “Christian” nation, shouldn’t we all be Anti-War? If we had been attacked by Iraq or Iraqis, fine, but that lie was debunked thoroughly long ago (newsflash to Right wingers). Only after we leave Iraq (even in it’s unprecedented level of misery) will God begin to forgive us.

  • Brian Hibbert

    violence just because he’s not involved? I suppose you think Adam Kinzinger should have just ignored the man attacking a woman. After all he wasn’t involved.

    But more to the point. Sadam attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States. He ordered his forces to fire on U.S. Aircraft on a regular basis. Those are attacks against us.

  • ti_bab

    If you’re going to use the “Christians are all Pacifists” argument, you need to take it all the way. That we had been attacked would have justified neither a reprisal nor a defense. “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ” Matthew 5.9.

    While Christ’s teachings certainly have a bearing on the response of the individual Christian, it does not necessarily follow that they apply in the same way to rulers, part of who’s God-given responsibility, according to Romans 13.3,4 is to “bear the sword” in the cause of good and justice.

    I also doubt that Christianity forbids coming to the defense of the helpless or oppressed. We certainly aren’t called on to “turn the other cheek” on behalf of somebody else. ” Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. ” Proverbs 24.11

  • septembergurl

    was to support the original war resolution and the invasion of Iraq, and to delay opposition until after 2004. But they are wrong.

    Their big mistake was to oppose the surge, virtually unanimously, and to oppose it in a dishonest way, lying about its scope and purpose, claiming that it was only a troop escalation rather than a fundamental change in strategy and personnel, and on and on.

    As the only actual reporter covering the white House (Jake Tapper) put the question: Could Obama have made this speech without the success of the surge? answer: No.

    Obama is able to fullfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq ONLY because Bush was right about the surge and Obama was wrong.

    Quite the paradox. Obama squares this circle as best he can by sh*tcanning large portions, entire acres, of the antiwar narrative.

    The glorious history of antiwar activity, reams of prose, hours and days of speeches, legislation, etc? Obama puts it thus:

    *As a nation, we have had our share of debates about the war in Iraq. It has, at times, divided us as a people. To this very day, there are some Americans who want to stay in Iraq longer, and some who want to leave faster. But there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have achieved.*

    Right. Some opposed it, some supported it, everybody had only the best motives, time to move on. Lincoln could not have put it better. Well, actually, he could have. And he did. But not bad, pretty Presidential.

    The illegal, immoral war that Bushitler McHalliburton waged, based on lies and oil for blood, the wrong war we fought illegally and immorally after taking our eye off the right war, the good war?

    *And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.*

    Exactly. And while I would rather it were Bush or McCain making this speech — since they actually made it possible through the surge — Obama understands that his responsibility is to guarantee the success that other statesmen and soldiers won.

    Having begun the work of unifying the nation behind our successful war in Iraq, and the associated task of attributing said success to Democrats as well as Republicans, Obama has to be wondering about his allies in Congress — the antiwar left remains impervious to reality.

    Including of course Jack Murtha, who also weighed in, stating that he didn’t like leaving any troops in Iraq. They should be pulled back to Kuwait.

    Kuwait? Why not *Okinawa…..Jack*?

    And Pelosi: We need troops to stay in Iraq..just not *in country*.
    What…a..maroon. But I suspect that word from Rahm has already gone out: Knock it off…or else.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    The theology is actually more like whether we accept God’s forgiveness. Which involves repentance, which will vary from person to person.

    In your case, it will involve repenting your decision that being for democracy and freedom was worth infinitely less than trying to make sure that it never happened under a Republican’s direction. I suggest that you hurry up with that…

    Somewhere else.

    Blam.