Herseth's Third Option

See this editorial in the Mitchell Daily Republic:

Headlines recently trumpeted Rep. Stephanie Herseth’s vote for bill that set a deadline to end the Iraq war but unfortunately, her vote and the measure itself was a major misstep by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The vote strongly resonates as a political statement rather than one designed to solve a serious problem.

How flawed was the measure?

For starters, this $124 billion spending bill included not only funding for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it contained $4 billion in agricultural disaster payments for farmers. Because of this “shotgun marriage” that contained unrelated issues in one piece of legislation, House members were forced to vote on a bill that presented conflicting objectives. Herseth apparently viewed a “no” vote as one against farm disaster payments and an abandonment of her ag constituency. However, a “yes” vote could be perceived as undermining a commitment the United States has made to Iraq.

It is this kind of legislation that ought to turn lawmakers’ hair gray because the dilemma it presents does not serve well the voters or the political process.

If this is the “new leadership” promised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then she shamelessly misled the public by promising to end partisan politics.

While we believe Herseth erred in voting for the bill, we don’t doubt her sincerity when she said she believed the measure was a compromise between those who demand an immediate withdrawal for Iraq and those who want no timetable at all.

A better course for Herseth lay in a third option. She should have opposed the measure and explained to her constituents that while she continues to support agriculture — which no one doubts — she could not endorse a measure that forced lawmakers to choose between two equally unattractive positions. By taking this path, she would have demonstrated that the measure was flawed because it included only two options, neither of them acceptable.

It is a fact that the war in Iraqi, now four years old, has not gone well. No one, certainly not President Bush, denies this. The impatience of the American people is understandable. But much of the politically charged rhetoric that accompanied the House bill passed last week only undermines the commitment the United States made to the Iraqi people and in a larger sense, the entire Middle East.

At this point, we do not know if the “surge” strategy outlined by President Bush will be successful. There are some positive indications, however, and the U.S. military leadership in place in Iraq understands perfectly that time is running out for a successful conclusion to this war.

What we wish for in Congress is legislation that allows lawmakers to vote up or down on key issues and not meld them with other issues that are unrelated but politically motivated.

The American people deserve no less.