Media Misrepresent Dems' Options on Iraq War-Confusing 'Can't' and 'Won't'

[babylonsister]

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0913-03.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 13, 2007
11:23 AM


CONTACT: Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting FAIR
[email protected]

Media Misrepresent Dems' Options on Iraq War
Confusing 'Can't' and 'Won't'


WASHINGTON - September 13 - Following a pattern set when Congress passed supplemental funding for the Iraq War last May (FAIR Media Advisory, 6/1/07), major media outlets continued to "explain" the politics of the war in incomplete and misleading ways.

The point made by these media outlets again and again is that the Democrats have little power to affect policy in Iraq because it would be difficult to pass legislation over a potential Republican filibuster, and even harder to pass a bill over a presidential veto. This sentiment is also voiced by many Democratic politicians, many of whom consider themselves opponents of the war. But passing a filibuster- or veto-proof bill is not their only option.

As the Washington Post's Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz (9/10/07) put it: "Because of a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to shut off debate and 67 votes to overturn a veto, (Senate Majority Leader Harry) Reid faced an almost impossible challenge. Even if all his troops stood together, he started with just 49 votes."

Newsweek's Howard Fineman declared that the Democrats' powerlessness was built into the constitutional system on NBC's Chris Matthews Show (9/2/07):

Politically, what the president has been trying to do is to keep discipline among the Republicans because as long as he can keep most of the Republicans in the Senate, in the House with him, there's no way to overturn the policy because of the way the Constitution reads.... I hate to keep coming back to the Constitution. Sixty votes to stop a filibuster, 67 to overturn a presidential veto in the Senate.


This sort of analysis was used to explain the Democrats' need to compromise with Republicans, watering down a firm withdrawal date in the hopes of winning bipartisan support. "Senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail," reported the New York Times' Carl Hulse (9/5/07). "Democrats would need to lure the 60 senators in order to cut off a likely Republican filibuster."

This approach was endorsed in an Associated Press report (9/11/07) by Matthew Lee:

If Republican support for the war holds, as it might for now, Democrats would have to soften their approach if they want to pass an anti-war proposal. But they remain under substantial pressure by voters and politically influential anti-war groups to settle for nothing less than ordering troop withdrawals or cutting off money for the war--legislation that has little chances of passing.


The problem with all these accounts is that Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq--it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41--the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War--if they choose to do so.

The Democratic leadership may believe--rightly or wrongly--that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different from being unable to affect policy. To insist, as many media outlets have, that the Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the nation--by confusing "can't" with "won't."

[sandnsea]

1. They won't strand the troops

That's right, the media is misrepresenting the Dems position, as is FAIR and just about everybody else. Not passing funding does not mean Bush will bring the troops home.

[lyonn]

2. Ahh, the filibuster, what a good idea. nt

[redqueen]

3. Not "confusing"... REPLACING... I will no longer act as if

their lies are innocent mistakes.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. That's all well and good for FAIR to say, but...

they're not the ones doing the planning. My own Congressman tells me that defundung the war that way is also impossible, and political risks have nothing to do with it.

Because funds are fungible, even with no supplemental war funding Shrub would be able to continue ther war by using other money. Besides, ANY full withdawal of troops would take at least a year, just gathering everybody and eveything up, and that withdrawal would have to be paid for somehow.

Wishful thinking that we're getting out of Iraq any time soon.

[Metta]

5. An excellent expose. Dems are weak since they won't confront * and worthy of contempt

This article tells it all. Thanks for posting.