The Enablers

Excuse me, desk, but my head needs some banging space.

Just when I think the critters in Congress are finally getting it, they go out of their way to prove me wrong. In the last month, Congress has finally shown that it has spines and the intestines to go with it. It has passed a bill the president made clear he would veto by a substantial margin, and then, after the promised veto was executed, managed a veto override. It has stood up to members of the administration who ignored congressional subpoenas, and had a federal court judge agree that there is no such thing as blanket immunity from such subpoenas. It has even allowed a motion for impeachment to actually get heard (although even I know it won't go far).

However, apparently there is a limit, and that limit has "Iraq War" stamped on it. Three quarters of the American public have finally figured out that this war was wrong and want us to get out. Four quarters of the Iraqi people want us out. The UN mandate for our presence in Iraq runs out at the end of the year. So what do a couple of House Democrats do? Introduce a bill that would allow us to stay for a while longer.

Bill Delahunt, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, justified their action in an op-ed piece in the July 31, 2008 edition of the Boston Globe.

A TIMETABLE for the withdrawal of US troops has long been a priority for Iraqis - 70 percent want the United States out, according to the latest polls. This sentiment is also reflected in Parliament - the only directly elected branch of government. Two months ago, the political parties representing a majority sent a letter to Congress opposing any US-Iraq security agreement without a timetable.

The Iraqi executive branch, usually allied with the Bush administration on this issue, has joined this consensus. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki insists that the agreement must "either remove US forces from the country or include a timetable for withdrawal." ...

The reality is that US troops will still be in Iraq on Jan. 1, and they will need combat authority and immunity from prosecution. We have introduced legislation calling for an extension of the mandate to meet these needs. ...

With time running out and with a valid bilateral agreement in doubt, the administration and the Maliki government should approach the Security Council now to work out a brief renewal of the UN mandate.

This not only protects US troops, but also gives sufficient time for the next administration to negotiate a security agreement that truly reflects the wishes of the American people and Iraqis, that is supported by democratically elected legislative bodies, and that provides for a responsible redeployment of American troops. [Emphasis added]

WTF?

Both esteemed members of Congress admit that the Bush administration is dragging its feet at this point because it doesn't want to be associated with anything like a time table for withdrawal (or, for that matter, a "time horizon", whatever in the hell that is). Rather than let the administration stew in its own self-made juices, these two stalwarts have tossed a life preserver to BushCo by introducing such a measure.

Now, that's bad enough, but the language of the of the bill apparently includes one of the very things the Iraqis object to: immunity from prosecution by the Iraqi government for crimes committed by the troops.

This approach, they claim, will free up the next administration to do the right thing, even if that next administration is headed by a man who has been busy backing the President on Iraq and everything else.

Somebody please pass me the whole bottle of aspirin. I feel a ginormous headache coming on.