Recently, the Capitol Hill of Washing D.C. has become especially bustling. Focusing on whether the United States needs to revise its Iraq strategy and when and how it should withdraw troops from Iraq, members of the two parties have unfolded endless debates.
In order to reach an agreement on a resolution with withdrawal timetable, the Democratic Party has its congressmen members discuss the issue all day and all night. It even provided full set of amenity such as beds, snacks, toiletries, etc. Media even called this a "pajamas party." Pentagon has had video conferences with the ambassador in Iraq, front-line commanders and members of Congress. Democratic members repeatedly shouted: "We have lost patience." White House officials also paid numberless visits to congressmen in an efforts to let them understand that an effective strategy needs time to prove.
At first glance, it seems that the Congress, under the control of the Democratic Party, will pass a resolution like this; while the White House is worried about it. But the fact is that the Democratic Party only controls the Senate by a slender majority. Unless a large number of the Republicans "turn their pike against their own camp", otherwise, it would be impossible for the Democratic Party to pass a resolution at a vote rate high enough to survive the President veto.
Given the doomed result, why do the two sides argue against each other then? A recent piece of news might be able to reveal the real reason. Certain member of the Democratic Party said in a statement that he would propose two resolutions, asking the Congress to denounce President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other government officials for the Iraq war and their violation of the "rule of law." He added in the statement said that the purpose of the resolution was not intending to "remedy the loss created by the Bush administration", but to "let future generations understand that Congress did adhere to the principle when they look back on the government's 'improper conduct'".
Obviously, the above mentioned "Congress" refers to the one controlled by the Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Democratic Party has a very clear mind that they can hardly change the current US strategy in Iraq. This is not because the Democratic Party has not enough seats in Congress, but because the Democratic Party cannot afford an uncertain future either. The White House described a terrible "prospects" after the withdrawal like this: "Al Qaeda" and Iran will loot a burning house; sectarian conflict will be intensified; the country is facing disintegration.
Although this is only a conjecture, the Democratic Party would have to pay a high price once the conjecture comes true. Therefore, what the Democratic Party want to do is only letting people know that the Republican Party should assume the responsibility for the Iraq war. In this way, it will win more "correct" votes in next year's presidential election. For the White House, what it has been doing is to lower down people's expectation towards the Iraq strategy, so as to win more time for itself and rescue the next year's election from the negative evaluation on the Iraq situation.
Founding father of the United States designed the system of separation of powers in order to restrain each other and avoid impulsive behavior of any side. However, the balance is characterized with features of entertaining performance due to elections factors involved. As a performance it is, the style becomes very important and the result can be ignored then.
By People's Daily Online
|
Comment
Tell A Friend
Print Format
Save Article