News Item: : The war funding bill and the debate
(Category: The War in Iraq)
Posted by
Friday 25 May 2007 - 19:00:01
This news item is from West Calaveras County
(Category: The War in Iraq)
Posted by
Friday 25 May 2007 - 19:00:01
| Friday, May 25th JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks. Mark, so, after it's all been said and done, what was accomplished by the debate and now the vote on this war funding bill? MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Well, I think first of all, Jim, I think anybody who pretends to be surprised at the outcome, frankly, does not understand the United States' political system. I mean, we don't have a parliamentary system. If we had a parliamentary system, the Bush administration would have fallen last November, because there was a vote of no confidence in that election, both in Iraq and in the president. |
| But we have a presidential system. He's elected for a term. The Democrats had a majority. They did not have enough votes to overturn. Without any change in the administration's policy, the president was going to prevail in a showdown over funding troops. But I think the debate is there. I think Republicans now have made it pretty clear that September becomes the crucial moment for them. They're not going to go much further in continuing this unanimous, loyal support to the president and to his policy in Iraq. And I think that's where we are. And September reality becomes big casino. JIM LEHRER: Mitch McConnell said handwriting is on the wall. How do you interpret that, David? DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: Well, I guess he's right, and September is the crucial date. Listen, what's happened this week is the Democrats are in control, and with power comes responsibility. They didn't have -- as Mark says, the Constitution wasn't organized for them to be able withdraw quickly because of the power the president has, but neither is the country. The country wants to get out of Iraq, but they don't want to get out precipitously. They want a managed withdrawal. The majority just isn't there. So the majority in the Congress had to accede to those two realities. And so they're facing tremendous heat on the left for the stand Pelosi has taken, just as, by the way, the Republicans in the House and Senate are now facing tremendous heat on the right for immigration. And what you're seeing this week is this ferocious uproar on these two separate issues against the people who are actually running the Congress. And I think, in both cases, the people who are actually in power are behaving reasonably responsibly. MARK SHIELDS: Could I just pick on one point David makes? I think it's a good point, and that is that -- the New York Times-CBS poll yesterday showed three out of four Americans believe the war is going badly. One out of two believe it's going very badly. Now, three out of five say we never should have gone there. Yet when they asked, "Should we pull out right now?" One out of eight says, yes, cut off funding. So, I mean, what you're really talking about is, you know, a very small percentage of people who are quite vocal, who are, I'm sure, sincere, but they are not anywhere near a plurality, let alone a majority. JIM LEHRER: A lot of people said, including the two of you, many times over the last several months, got to have a real debate on Iraq. We've got to have a real debate on Iraq. We haven't had a debate on Iraq. Have we had one now? DAVID BROOKS: I think we've had a debate all along. JIM LEHRER: All along? DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think we've had -- I think before the war we had a big debate about Iraq. I recall reading tons of speeches, everybody talking about Iraq. And now the question is, do people have a plan forward? Do people have a postwar, post-surge plan? And there we don't -- we actually haven't had a debate about that, because so far there's really one or two plans floating out there. Most people just think we can somehow end the war by getting out. We can't end the war by getting out. We'll end maybe our participation in the war, but the war will go on. JIM LEHRER: But you agree, do you not, Mark, that September has now become the benchmark? MARK SHIELDS: September has. JIM LEHRER: I don't think it is because -- wrong word. MARK SHIELDS: No, benchmark is not... JIM LEHRER: Calendar point. MARK SHIELDS: It's the defining point. JIM LEHRER: Defining point. MARK SHIELDS: It really is. And that's when the full appropriation comes up. One place I would disagree with David is, we did not have a debate before this war. I contrast it with the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, when we had a very serious, thoughtful debate, where members sat. The Democrats were craven going to the war in Iraq this time. They were scared of being accused of being soft on terrorism, with rare exceptions. And the Republicans were mindless in their support. I mean, they really were unquestioning. We never got to a question about, what happens when, what happens then, what happens after, in that debate. And, certainly, we never debated 300,000 troops, which now is the answer that many administration has for the solution. |
This news item is from West Calaveras County