Rep. Obey Joins "Idiot Liberals": Vows Not To Fund Iraq Debacle Without Date Certain to End War

Joining the Idiot Liberals, and separating himself from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) promised to not forward any bill from his committee that funds the Iraq War without a date certain to end it:

"I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President's request if that request were made in support of a change in policy that would do three things.

-- "Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009."

-- "Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments."

-- "Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region."

"But this policy does not do that. It simply borrows almost $200 billion to give to the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Justice with no change in sight.

"As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo."

Not funding after a date certain. Good idea Congressman.  Welcome to the fight. We "Idiot Liberals" have been waiting on you for the past seven months.

< Supreme Court to Hear Drug Sentencing Cases Today | Judge Accused of Spanking Prisoners Resigns >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    be careful (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by bob fertik on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    because Obey didn't set a date certain to "end it."

    "Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009."

    Even assuming he means a strict goal, he only wants the U.S. out of "combat operations" - just a change of mission.

    That wouldn't bring 1 soldier home.

    They would just be doing "counter-terrorism," "force protection," "training Iraqi forces," "protection of humanitarian workers," etc.

    If Obey is serious, he'll adopt the language of the Out of Iraq Caucus:

    "We will only support appropriating funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office."


    yup (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:35:37 PM EST
    bob is absolutely correct.  With these spineless Dems their frontrunners cannot even promise that we'll be out of Iraq in 2013 let alone 2008 or 2009.

    Meanwhile there is a poll out today which says that the US public (not the "idiot liberals") want to cut funding for the Iraq war.  It is the only tool that the Democrats have.  Yet they have this phobia of being labelled as weak sissies and surrender monkeys, so they'd rather be strong than do what their constituents want.

    Can someone give these disfunctional Dems some Prozac.


    Could it be (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kovie on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:55:32 PM EST
    that the wording was deliberately made this vague and open-ended in order to preempt and innoculate against accusations of "precipitous withdrawal" (which, we all know, actually means withdrawal, period, EVER, no matter how responsible and drawn-out, but which has been used to distort the debate in the past and which all too many Dems continue to willingly feed into)?

    If funding never gets sent up and passed, Dems can then say "Look, we made such a generous offer and STILL they wouldn't budge, so what were we to do if we wanted to do the responsible thing for our troops and economy?".


    Exactly. Combat operations "ended" ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Meteor Blades on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:13:05 PM EST
    ...and 30-100,000 troops still in Iraq. The Obey version of "Mission Accomplished." Sad, really, he had a fine record until recently.

    I didn't know we had two (1.00 / 3) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:10:12 AM EST

    The things Democrats and the Left teach us is amazing.

    What's next? Declaring the war us lost and surrendering??

    Oh. Wait. They've already done that.

    To Fund or Not to Fund (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by glanton on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:14:12 AM EST
    Is not the province of the CINC.

    Stay alert


    Nonsense (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 08:11:42 AM EST
    The very act of "not funding" is setting the foreign policy of the country.

    Do not try and pretend you don't understand this.

    And the Constitution puts funding under Congress.

    It does not put in under one "Congressman."


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by glanton on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    There is this crazy notion in the Constitution, now long obsolete, that it is for the Congress to Declare War.  And of Course there's the funding which they control utterly.

    CIC in the Constitution was never code for "Napolean," however many wish it were so.

    Anyway, there is ebauty in not funding.  And rest assured it isn't just Obey.  You just have to remember that nobody, nor even a coalition of bodies, ever sponsors a bill not to fund.

    Of course that's not what they're telling you on Fox and throughout the punditocracy.  But then, at this point it's just hard to get past the fact that these people who screwed everything so badly still puff their chests out as though they somehow deserve to be taken seriously.

    You know, like you with your prediction re Columbia.  


    amazing... (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 09:01:53 PM EST
    You argue against "Napolean" but you're for someone who is acting as "Napolean."

    Make your mind up.


    A serious attempt at discourse with Jim (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by glanton on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 09:56:18 PM EST
    Congress doesn't need a majority not to fund, anymore than Congress needed a majority to help Reagan ignore AIDS in the 80s.  

    :-0 (Did I just type that out loud?)

    Congress, thou vaunted social liberal apologist for all things Republican, doesn't decide not to fund, or not to do much of anything else, through a vote.  

    Christ on a crumb heap: I mean, I understand that you think we should make an active point of continuing to give him money for his war, but could you at least stay grounded in reality?

    But here's the part where you seem to be most confused: CIC doesnt mean I get to start whatever war I want and then you, the American people, are automatically obligated to give me a blank check after blank check to keep it going so long as I see fit. CIC is much more about running wars than starting them, authorizing them, or --gasp!--determining how long they should last.

    Differennce between a President and a King lies somewhere in there.  

    Anywho, here's a question worth pondering, though nobody ponders it anymore:  

    Why is it that the Constitution gives Declaration of War powers to the Congress instead of the President? What is the rationale behind it?

    Stay alert, and stay with Fox.


    I didn't say Congress had (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:26:23 AM EST
    to keep funding anything. My point was:

    As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo."

    The above is not this:


    That is one Congressman refusing to bring the issue to debate.

    Worthy of a King, eh??

    What was that quote??

    "All animals are created equal... but some are more equal than others"
    Animal Farm

    Animal Farm? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:35:14 AM EST
    An apt quote.

    George Minimus Bush.


    Your ignorance is stunning (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:38:05 AM EST
    There is no doubt (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 07:42:49 AM EST
    that the citizens of the US want a single Democratic Congress from the small state of WI to determine the foreign policy of the country. (sarcasm alert)

    Big Tent (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 08:14:13 AM EST
    And your inability to recognize sarcasm demonstrates... what??

    Nothing. Because you knew it was sarcasm. You just took the opportunity, again, to issue an insult.


    Your determination to remain in denial (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:44:19 PM EST
    is also stunning. As is your determination to twist meaning.

    "Ignorance" is lack of knowledge, whether willful or not. "Stunning" is an adjective describing it.

    Your ignorance is indeed stunning, and apparently limitless.


    Obviously (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    They not teach you basic grammer yet.

    After that comes civics.


    jondee (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 07:47:14 AM EST
    A strange snark from someone who signs his moniker "jondee."

    Proper names, capitals, all that...

    Better to have typing problems than thinking problems, eh?

    The former is correctable.

    The latter is not.



    Its about time (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:32:47 PM EST
    because movement (Even glacial-paced) is better than where we have been.

    Can we get a blood sample? (none / 0) (#8)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 12:45:52 AM EST
    ...and proof of Democratic registration?

    Is it possible Obey's blood holds the cure, for millions of Democrats?

    Perhaps the nightmare of Democratic Lack of Spine Defect (D-LSD) is finally over?

    -==> Nyah. I knew it was too good to be true.


    Obey's never lacked spine. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 02:33:06 AM EST
    Last speing, after nose-counting, he realised a decisive number of his fellow Dems would fund the war if Bush offered to spring the $ for their homestate priorities, so he decided to play it for the best deal he could broker.

    He wouldn't be making this promise if he couldn't back it up.


    We can hope, I suppose, that Pelosi (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:43:16 PM EST
    now has someone to blame defunding and ending the occupation on... in spite of her...

    This story (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:11:15 PM EST
    will be on every blog and media website and newspaper and TV news show in the world...

    Critical mass, anyone?