Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

A sleazy war vote

By A TIMES EDITORIAL
Published March 24, 2007

Democrats found a way to turn a principled stand against the unending war in Iraq into a sleazy sideshow. In order to get enough votes in the House of Representatives Friday to pass a $124-billion spending bill that puts an August 2008 withdrawal deadline on combat troops in Iraq, Democratic leaders had to lard the legislation with pork projects.

That broke a promise House Democrats made just a couple of months ago to end the practice of buying votes of individual members by slipping special-interest earmarks into unrelated bills.

So while the vote ostensibly was about the funding and conduct of the war in Iraq, it turned on giving billions of dollars to peanut and dairy farmers, shrimpers and fishermen, even spinach growers. Yes, the same spinach industry that sickened nearly 200 Americans last year (killing three) with E. coli-tainted produce, would be rewarded with a $25-million taxpayer bailout.

What does this have to do with the Iraq war? Nothing, and that is why the clumsy effort by House Democrats is unworthy of public support.

Certainly, Congress' role in setting performance benchmarks for the Iraqi government and planning American troop withdrawals is a subject worthy of debate and legislative action. The Senate approach would make those goals nonbinding to allow the military adequate leeway to protect soldiers and civilians. House Democrats have spoiled the debate by making the issue pork instead of war.

A key decision on the Iraq war shouldn't be decided by political bribery. To win just enough votes from Democratic members, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to find their weaknesses. In California, it was spinach; in Wisconsin, it was the dairy industry, which would get a $283-million subsidy; throughout the Farm Belt, the bailout for a variety of crop and livestock losses would be $3.3-billion.

Democratic leaders admitted the tactic was necessary to scrape up enough votes. "Clearly, those items are designed to respond to the concerns of members," said Rep. Steny Hoyer, House majority leader. "It encourages them to vote for the bill."

Republicans predictably cried foul, and their complaints would ring more true had they not used the same method of vote buying when they were in charge. While the Democratically controlled Senate is likely to temper the House bill, the upper chamber has added some sweeteners of its own, including billions for agribusiness. If a final supplemental war appropriations bill passes only because of unrelated pork, that would be reason enough for President Bush to justify a threatened veto.

Using the tragic conflict in Iraq to pay off special interests, especially the greedy agricultural industry, is an insult. Shame on the House Democrats.

[Last modified March 23, 2007, 21:28:33]