Iraq-nam: The Next Gambit

Or two of them, actually. After empty PR stunts accomplished nothing and they proved too squeamish to stick with troop withdrawal poison pills, the Defeatocrats have moved on to a retroactive attempt to put a shelf life on Congress' declaration of war against Saddam Hussein:

As Democrats in Congress search for new ways to bring an end to the conflict in Iraq while producing a funding bill that President Bush will sign, the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination yesterday endorsed legislation that would revoke the Administration's authority to wage the war.

Ah, semanticism. If I may translate: "As Democrats in Congress search for new ways to bring an end to American participation in the conflict in Iraq without being conspiciously seen as being responsible for the disaster that would ensue from it, the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination endorsed legislation that has never been invoked in any form at any time in American history.

Resuming....

Amid a flurry of backroom negotiations yesterday afternoon, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) took the Senate floor to join Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (WV) in offering a bill that would sunset the 2002 authorization of military operations in Iraq. It would take away the President's authority to wage war in Iraq five years to the day after it was granted, meaning Bush would be required to convince Congress to reapprove it in October....

I freely admit that I'm a merely amateur historian, but has there ever been a case, as I alluded to above, of Congress revoking a declaration of war while hostilities were still ongoing? Particularly against an enemy that Congress also declared war on a year prior to the Iraq war resolution? Is Hillary going to try to get the post-9/11 war resolution against al Qaeda revoked as well?

Clinton's endorsement of the sunset legislation represents a significant escalation in her opposition to the White House on war policy and signals an effort by Democratic presidential candidates - including four sitting senators - to assume higher profiles in the war debate. For Clinton, it is also an opportunity to address what has emerged as perhaps her greatest liability in the Democratic contest: her vote to authorize the war. "If the President will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," said Clinton, who has expressed support for a similar de-authorization, although not as a stand-alone bill.

In other words, she's trying to cover her ass on her original pro-war vote in a way less embarrassing than John Kerry did in 2004. The only fly in this particular ointment is the self-same one that torpedoed the troop withdrawal poison pill bill: President Bush will veto it, and the Democrats have zero chance of overriding it.

Or is it a flaw after all, since she is, after all, the 2008 "presumptive" Donk presidential nominee? She can use a Bush veto of this sunset provision as a flog against the GOP and its eventual nominee clear through to next November. And with Rasmussen showing (sorry, misplaced the link) 57% of Americans backing a set timetable for retreat from Iraq (sorry, misplaced my breakfast - or would have if I'd eaten any), that looks, on the surface at least, like a very shrewd move after all.

In the mean time, none other than Ali-Dickbar al-Durbini appears to have been assigned the task of providing PR cover for this latest angle:

President Bush appears poised to win months more of funding for troops in Iraq. But if conditions don't improve there by fall, he could lose support from a battalion of congressional Republicans.

Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, while still debating details, say they are likely to pass a bill that would tie war spending to a set of benchmarks for Iraq's progress but no deadlines for troop withdrawal, which caused Bush to veto a funding bill this week. They would then address the war in other debates this summer and let political pressure mount on the GOP. ...

Fits hand-in-glove with Hillary's angle, doesn't it? And with a potential added bonus:

Faced with the prospect of losing anti-war Democrats in the Senate, who will not support a bill without a withdrawal timeline, Durbin said the only choice is to work with Republicans on a compromise. [emphasis added]

Thus, not only do Dems not get stuck with "ownership" of a post-withdrawal disaster in Iraq, but by drawing in RINOs to al-Durbini's "compromise," Republicans stand to get hanged with responsibility for both the war and the defeat the Democrats will have engineered.

Of course, there is a gamble involved - namely, that General Petraeus' "surge" will, by this fall, have succeeded in pacifying Iraq. But by keeping the funds flowing (for now), Dems ensure that they will at least minimize the damage to their own political prospects and also horn in on at least some of the credit for the White House' success.

In that case, Mrs. Clinton's pro-war vote four and a half years ago wouldn't look so bad after all. And you can bet that she'll spare no opportunity to boast accordingly. After all, the Clinton concept of "reality" is like Morpheus' blue pill in The Matrix: "Whatever you want it to be."

And whatever will put her fat ass back in the White House.