Dems on Iraq: More Pressure Needed

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:48:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

From the NYTimes:

Over the next few weeks, the new Democratic Congressional majority will try to translate public discontent with the war in Iraq into actual policy, with a series of votes on the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq — the party’s most consequential votes yet. But the Democrats face some extraordinary political and institutional hurdles, which explain why Congress wades so reluctantly — and at times so achingly incrementally — into matters of war, veteran lawmakers say.

Extraordinary political and institutional hurdles? Balderdash. Leadership is all that is required. Getting out of Iraq is an EASY political call. Too many in the activist base (see Move On) and in the blogs (see the A List Left Blogs) think that we should "take it easy" on thye Dem leadership because "the GOP is worse" as if that is the question.

The question my friends is what is going to HELP the Dem Leadership get us out of Iraq. Letting the Blue Dogs be the only source of pressure, insisting on being the Kumbaya Caucus is to sit the battle out. We would do Pelosi and Reid no favors if we did that. They need to feel pressure from us so they can resist the pressure from the Blue Dogs.

Many lawmakers are deeply reluctant to use the power of the purse; Democratic leaders repeatedly promised they would not cut off funds for the troops during last year’s Congressional campaign. “It’s a high-risk thing,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts.

We need to make it a high risk thing NOT to defund the Iraq Debacle.

In general, many lawmakers say the tools available to Congress on the war are very blunt instruments. Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, a Republican moderate and a critic of the war, said lawmakers who disagreed with the president could find themselves in a “terrible quandary.” He added, “Congress is an institution incapable of playing commander in chief, and the Democrats are proving that.”

Gordon Smith is proving himself to be a two faced coward. Not surprising.

We we need to do is make him pay for it in 2008, by taking his seat.

A little steel, a little resolve, a little leadership. That's what Dems need. That's what we need. So far the Dems and the Blogs have been lacking in all these things.

< Google's Latest Hiring Perk | Where's Karl Rove? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Dems on Iraq: More Pressure Needed | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Who is leading the Dem House? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by cal11 voter on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:09:42 AM EST

Pelosi or Hoyer? With so many Dems in safe seats, why does Woolsey's proposal for funding Iraq withdrawal only get 50 sponsors? It is not exclusively a Blue Dog issue IMHO.

I don't know why (1.00 / 4) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:44:05 AM EST

I keep repeating this, but..

First a bill must pass both Houses. That includes a for certain fillibuster in the Senate by the Repubs.

Then it would be vetoed by the President and returned to Congress where it would have to be repassed with a two thirds majority and get by another fillibuster.

Aint gonna happen.

Have a nice day.


Then you don't know what you're talking about (5.00 / 7) (#5)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:38:28 AM EST

The budget doesn't require cloture, and always starts in the House. 218 is the magic number.


Funny how ... (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by Sailor on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:00:55 PM EST

... rethuglicans were against filibusters before they were for them.

bush and the rethugs own this war, make them declare for it over and over while 70% of Americans want us out of the war.

The mistake that has been made in the past is that losing a vote is a bad thing; doing the right thing, even when you know you're going to lose is still the right thing to do.


: Dpn't you wish (3.00 / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:22:33 PM EST

the Demos had let the Repubs get rid of the 60 rule, replacing it with a simple majority.
There it was. The opportunity of a life time and the Demos complained it away.
;-)
Have a nice day.

Huh? (1.00 / 2) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:19:29 PM EST

And it has to pass the Senate, and the fillibuster and be vetoed and then repassed with a two thirds majority and another fillibuster.

Aint gonna happen.


You're spreading misinformation (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:13:18 PM EST

the budget DOES NOT REQUIRE cloture in the Senate.


Tireseome (3.00 / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:03:34 PM EST

All bills that become law in the US must pass the House and the Senate.

If the President vetos them, they must be re-passed with a two thirds majority.

All bills may be the subject of a fillibuster in the Senate.

: Here we go again (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:20:26 PM EST

All bills may be the subject of a fillibuster in the Senate.
Is simply incorrect. For the 3rd time, the budget cannot be filibustered. I'm troll rating you because you keep repeating the same incorrect point.

so sick of that gop is worse excuse (5.00 / 11) (#4)
by Patriot Daily on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:42:01 AM EST

Seems we used to only hear that excuse at election time, and now it's used during congressional session time. actually, not even sure that will work with me anymore at election time because it just gives dems an excuse to not take action while in session, confidant that we won't have any choice but to vote for them at election time.

In any event, what helped end the Vietnam war?

Fellow member of the Out of Iraq caucus, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) has stated that "Personally I wouldn't spend another dime on the war," and notes that Congress helped force an end to the Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it.

So, democrats can take no funding action for vietnam but not iraq? please. what they are doing is pushing people to sign up for independents.

i know this does not have to be said, but thanks (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by conchita on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:18:25 PM EST

for continuing to write these. i will continue to read you here, but most likely not comment often. just wanted to let you know your work is appreciated .

Why do I feel some Dems are (5.00 / 6) (#8)
by mentaldebris on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:43:37 PM EST

taking these immortal words of Homer Simpson to heart:

Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

So they never try. If they won't try, perhaps we can find someone (primary, primary, primary) who will.

Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason. ~Author Unknown

Funny (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:48:52 PM EST

That it is soooooo clear that we are doing the repugs and blue dogs a favor by demanding a fully funded withdrawl. Foresight is sometimes 20/20, and in this case there is no doubt that we are a beacon.

Squeaky, even for you that is out of sight... (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:24:03 PM EST

What? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:38:03 PM EST

It has been my position all along. And yes, I do think it will be a feather in the cap of those who come around to support it.


: Squeaky (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:05:29 PM EST

Would this be as opposed to a partially funded??
Not funded???
Any ole way you can get your behind on a plane, train and automobile???
Your a funny lady, squeaky.

The Demos are now starting to understand (1.00 / 4) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:56:16 AM EST

the unreasonableness of those they let take control of them, and they are starting to see what the results are.

As Obey discovered.

That has been furthered highlighted by your side pulling out of the Nevada debate:

The letter said Nevada Democrats had entered into the agreement with Fox, despite strong opposition from Democratic activist groups such as MoveOn.org, as a way of finding "new ways to talk to new people."
But Collins and Reid wrote that comments on Thursday by FOX News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, when he jokingly compared Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, to Osama bin Laden, "went too far," and prompted Nevada Democrats to end the partnership.

Now I will agree that Ailes' comment was wrong, but if the Demos/Left wants to talk about things that shouldn't be said, how about this one from Salon by the Pulitzer Price winning author Jane Smiley.

Gary Kamiya writes, "In a just world, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Feith and their underlings would be standing before a Senate committee investigating their catastrophic failures, and Packer's book would be Exhibit A."
(Smiley's reply)No. In a just world, these people would be taken out and shot......

The Demos have inherited the wind, and people who don't understand that if you don't have the vites, you can't pass a bill.

I hope they are enjoying what their use of the anti-war Left has brought them.

And I hope their partners are enjoying the mental masturbation of talking about something that can't be done.... and looking more over the top and out of control to the American public every day.

Obey is a good (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by taylormattd on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 06:20:28 PM EST

anti-war progessive in a difficult position, but he was wrong when he made his statement, and he has since apologized for it.

And by the way, does your comment have any point?


: If I have to explain you won't undetstand it. (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:58:52 PM EST

You support shooting people left and right (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Dadler on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:01:00 PM EST

You just want different people shot. Your blind support of this war is support for shooting more people than Smiley could count. I submit, quite logically, that to support the shooting of countless tens of thousands of innocent people is much more morally reprehensible (as well as violently REAL) than a novelist making a harsh rhetorical point in a Salon commentary.

But it's par for the course for you to think a commentator more responsible for the course of this war than the commander-and-chief and his team. Par and perfectly crazy.


: Take a peek (3.00 / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:00:44 PM EST

A picture is worth a 100o words. In this case, 10,000 words.

: You forgot the middle (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:02:34 AM EST

in your ad hominem attack.

You just want different people shot.
And your choice is??