How Not To Win The Battle To End the Iraq Debacle

I am now convinced that the House Dem Leadership has no clue how to end the Iraq Debacle. What convinced me is this:

[In] [a] meeting in Pelosi's office Thursday . . . Pelosi's political consigliere, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). . . 's pitch was blunt: If the liberals team up with Republicans to bring down the Iraq bill, Democratic leaders would have no choice but to come back with a spending bill that simply funds the war, without any policy restrictions. It would pass easily, with Republican votes and the support of many Democrats.

Now why in the hell is that true? Why must the Dem leadership introduce such a no restrictions bill? Why would they "have no choice?" Sez who?

Oh BTW, what happens NOW that the Republicans KNOW they can stop this bill and get the no restrictions bill? Did George Miller just show ALL his cards to the GOP leadership?

Just how stupid is the Dem leadership in the House? Does George Miller ALWAYS show his hands to the Republicans? This is an act of incompetence that seems unprecedented to me.

I've never seen anything like it. At least since last week when Steny Hoyer announced Dems would never defund the war. Ever. Blithering idiots.

< Impeach Alberto Gonzales | Bills to Restore Habeas and Detainee Rights Introduced >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A bluff, I must believe (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:27:08 AM EST
    One that I would urge the progressives to call.

    I really have a hard time beliving that Pelosi is this stupid, unless she's come to one fo two conclusions.

    a) there's no possible way to get 218 votes to defund (doubtful);


    b) Democrats will face certain defeat in '08 of she exercises the political muscle required to get to 218.

    I'd say B is more likely, but also probably not true.

    George Miller's Bluff? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:16:16 AM EST
    Definitely. Stick it up his you know what.

    A word (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:16:48 PM EST
    Your grasp, command and use of the English language is only exceeded by your lack of debating skills.

    Coming from you (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:31:52 PM EST
    Well coming from you,  nothing else need be said.

    The linked article convinces me that I have not... (none / 0) (#19)
    by cal11 voter on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    been giving the Dems enough credit for their math skills.  I think the leadership has known for some time now the legislative plan they intended to pursue.  And it wasn't defunding.  It's a done deal IMHO.

    What do you mean? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:52:08 AM EST
    Mean about done deal? (none / 0) (#23)
    by cal11 voter on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    The article says Emanuel claims they have 200 votes, doesn't it?  And that the Dem leadership expects they won't receive backing of about only a dozen Blue Dogs and a dozen Out of Iraq caucus members.  Seems to me they are just about there.

    They need 218 (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:11:42 AM EST
    They need passage in the Senate. They need to avoiud a veto.

    TGere is nothing here.


    What are they thinking? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by joliberal on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:07:56 AM EST
    This is the type of behavior from the Dems that has been driving me crazy. They cave to republican arguments before any real discussion has begun. It preemptively knee-caps any real plan to end the war.

    They're scared of their own shadows (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Light Emitting Pickle on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:38:44 AM EST
    I can't figure out why they're listening to "conventional wisdom." Unfortunately, of course, conventional wisdom is closely tied with whatever is reported by the networks (including cable). The question is: how do we counteract this? My brother still says that Fox News is great, because at least it's presenting a "different view." In my reality-based world, that means that Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republicans. But, hey, call me crazy.

    I'm frustrated as hell at the fact that our side doesn't seem capable of taking a stand on anyting. Too many Congressmen are only concerned about their reelection. Is this a problem with the 2-year turnaround? Would it be better if this were changed?


    By being afraid of losing (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:13:56 AM EST
    they are insuring that they will lose.

    I think... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by joliberal on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 01:12:06 PM EST
    they are more afraid of republican spin then they are of the voters.

    No reason for suprise (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Andreas on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:28:30 AM EST
    The Democratic Party has consistently supported the criminal war. There is no reason to be surprised. But it is time to (finally) draw conclusions.

    The Dems should just pass a clean funding bill. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cal11 voter on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:06:13 AM EST
    It's the only thing that would withstand a veto in both Houses of Congress.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:30:26 AM EST
    Clean funding of what?

    Sorry for the poor attempt at snark. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by cal11 voter on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    Miller's default position.  I don't see how they can pass anything that is veto-proof without Bush's acquiescence.  The Dem leadership must decide whether they will take on Bush or not.  I think the Dem leadership is proving to be quite moderate in its approach.

    Thankls (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:49:47 AM EST
    Obey and Miller and David Sirota for that matter do not seem to understand this.

    Meanwhile, some Activist Blogs will be polling the PResidential race in Nevada.

    I see they have their activist priorities straight.

    Personally, I have had it wioth the blogs. I am going to start a new blog to review how pathetic they are as Netroots Activists.

    Don't want to get Jeralyn in trouble.


    It seems obvious (none / 0) (#5)
    by Habanero Pops on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 06:23:01 AM EST
    One should not be surprised by what is happening with the Democrats. 2008 is just around the corner, and they're not going to make a move which would jeopardize the upcoming elections. They talked about bringin us home when they got into office, and they can't even settle a debate. I view this  with a different shade of sunglasses. I served in the Air Force for 22 years till 2006. I've proudly served for both a Democrat and a Republican President, but it's Congress that doesn't see what's going on, because they're too busy protecting their own rear-ends, or increasing their wages. This war, which isn't "Criminal", could've been accomplished a long time ago, if our hands weren't tied. I really don't care if it's a Democratic or Republican Congress. What I want is a Congress that acts versus reacts. How about news media that just reports the facts about the war.
    When's the last time you saw the Media or the Congress report on all the good that we're doing in Iraq? The reason the American public doesn't see it, is because it doesn't sell or get them votes. Not a day goes by that someone isn't talking about the body count of Americans. How about number of people murdered in a month here in the United States, I don't see that on the nightly news. Now isn't that "fair and balanced"
    So people will blog and debate on whether or not to debate. I'm glad my military doesn't support that. But we give you that right, just don't abuse it.

    All these moves ARE jeopardizing 2008 (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    You and they seem not to understand this.

    All that good stuff (none / 0) (#6)
    by wlgriffi on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 06:51:20 AM EST
    "When's the last time you saw the Media or the Congress report on all the good that we're doing in Iraq?"

    We keep hearing about all this "good" being accomplished in Iraq. Please explain why The Iraqi people aren't singing the praises you warrior peacemakers keep saying we aren't observing. The only Iraqis agreeing with you are those sitting in the "green zone" who are really the Bush "Quisling"government.


    Re: It seems obvious.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Skyho on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:32:45 PM EST

    First, from a vet., thanks for your service.

    Second, you didn't learn much in the military, did you?

    The military never did give anyone the "right" to debate.  Our founding documents spell out where we got that "right" and it isn't from the military.  Like sex, the "right" to debate is only strengthened through usage, something we did not see in the last six years of Congress.  The present "war" is only for big business.

    Comparing deaths of American soldiers to people murdered in the US is, at best, comparing apples to oranges.  A large percent of the Iraqi population does not want us in Iraq (Neither does a majority of the US population).  Our soldiers are being killed by freedom fighters, not muggers.

    Your own argument can be used to minimize 9-11, to wit, the three thousand killed at the WTC, not all Americans, not even  legal aliens, is nothing compared to the 4000+ killed in auto accidents every month, yet I don't hear anyone suggesting we declare war on automobiles.  In fact, the three thousand is dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands killed by starvation and is miniscule compared to Americans that die from preventable diseases.

    Instead of repeating tired old throwaway lines, why don't you read and try thinking, something the military does not seem to encourage anymore.


    All the Good? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    What good did you see from several thousand feet above the ground while dropping bombs on poverty stricken people below?

    Stop Thinking Politically and Start Acting Morally (none / 0) (#7)
    by john horse on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:53:21 AM EST
    In a previous post I argued that our Democratic representatives need to stop doing the political thing and start acting morally.

    If you have come to the conclusion that this war is unwinnable even with additional troops or unjustifiable then you must support an immediate end of the war for moral reasons.  As John Kerry put it, As John Kerry once asked about the Vietnam war, "how can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" or to put it in terms that Republicans might understand, why throw good money after bad?  

    I suspect that the reluctance of Americans to support an immediate end to this war is because American do not like to lose.  However, you should know this, if you don't oppose Bush's do-over and the escalation fails you are as guilty as Bush for the lives that were wasted.  

    What I think the Democrats should do is propose a repeal of the authorization for the war.  

    No (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:08:20 AM EST
    The political thing is the moral thing this time.

    Defund the defunding idea... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Richard in Jax on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:22:51 AM EST
    The `Open Minded' Democrat: his own worst enemy. This war, up to this point, is entirely a Republican thing. Not only was it created by them, it was created for them. The USA and Iraq never figured into the picture. It was to be the "Look at our Big Dick" war, the dream of PNAC and a bunch of fat bald GOP'ers that ran from Viet Nam. Again, it was never about the security of the USA (it has made that worse), liberating the Iraqi people (they live in stark terror) or WMD (there were none).
    No Democrat with a lick of sense would move to share this fiasco with the GOP. Defunding this war means YOU BUY IT! You take it on as your project. And you do it right when the world is about to pull back the curtain to reveal that fat bald GOP'er at the levers. All of the `Open Minded' democratic ideas will do nothing but put a Democrat in that chair just as the curtain goes back. Democrats are not going to fix or solve that damn war as it is unsolvable and irreparable.
    It's a GOP thing. Leave it there.
    The role of the Democrat is to move America against this war. There is a larger purpose in that. In the past, as in Vietnam, the failure of war has been scapegoated as sabotaged by those demanding peace.  The dirty rotten hippies. The politicians. Etc.  Sure the Vietnam War was stopped by a popular ground swell ( and its own inevitability )but  it was done in a fashion that allowed the fat bald guys to save face and project their failure on the conventional scapegoats. Hence...THE IR BACKKK!!!!.
    This one needs to be ended right. It needs to devastate its creators, elevate its detractors and destroy the policy of "Hit and Run" that has been the tool of the loathsome short, fat, bald GOP'er with no military participation.  I would add `little dicked' to that chain of adjectives but it would only be `nut picked' by some conservative whiner and appear on Malkin's blog as an example of the angry Left.  But hey? I am angry as my countrymen are needlessly dying, so short dicked it is.
    Don't buy this piece of crap. Just work on it from the outside. Do not make this war a Democratic liability or this party is dead for 25 years. Every death post a defunding measure will be spun as the fault of the lack of money. The inevitable failure of this war will be permanently and indelibly attached to the Democrats by having `failed at the turning point', leaving Hit and Run to return in the near future. I think the Democratic leadership knows this. Defunding is absolutely not the way.

    That is ass backwards (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:07:42 AM EST
    NOT funding the war keeps it away from you.

    FUNDING the war, your proposal, is what makes it also a Dem war.


    We do not have a clear Senate majority (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilybart on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:57:28 AM EST
    so there is no mystery as to why more cannot get done. What legislation would pass the Senate with a veto-proof majority? None.

    People need to stop asking the DEMS to do what is NOT POSSIBLE with this White House.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    I do not mean to offend you, but you have missed the months of conversation on this.

    Please read my previous posts on this subject. Whether we have the votes in the Senate or not is utterly irrelevant to what I am talking about.


    Re: We do not have..... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Skyho on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    "so there is no mystery as to why more cannot get done. What legislation would pass the Senate with a veto-proof majority? None."

    Who cares.

    Congress was re-allocated last elections in a manner to get out of Iraq.  Those in Congress need to listen to their roots.  Make a stand.

    Emphasize it is a Neo-con war.  The Neo-cons have hijacked the Republican party.  and the Dems are going with the American majority.  No funding.  Get out now!

    Americans need to realize that an Iraqi Civil War is inevitable, whether we get out now or forty years later.  A civil war is essential  for Iraqis to resolve their differences.

    We can speed Iraqi independence by leaving in 30 days.  The only difference between 30 days and forty years is 2.4 American serviceman deaths (and uncounted woundings) per day.  Count them up.

    and, we really need to take care of the losers in the WH.


    We are never really leaving Iraq (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    The mega-bases are there, we're never leaving.  We may get troops out of Baghdad and out of the business they're in now, but we are never leaving those bases.  It is sick, immoral and will lead to further destruction of everyone's interests.

    LT. COL (ret.) KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Well, a big part of what happens is these guys have top cover, the names of the top cover are Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. These guys like what Wolfowitz has done. And here's the other thing.  While we as American citizens do not like being lied to, particularly being lied to into a stupid quagmire that makes no sense. We don't' like being lied to. Congress doesn't like being lied to. However, many in Congress, and certainly in this administration agree, and this is Democrats and Republicans, like the idea that we have gone into Iraq, we have built four mega bases, they are complete. Most of the money we gave to Halliburton was for construction and completion of these bases. We have probably, of the 150,000, 160,000 troops we have in Iraq probably 110,000 of those folks are associated with one of those four mega bases. Safely ensconced behind acres and acres of concrete. To operate there indefinitely, no matter what happens in Baghdad, no matter who takes over, no matter if the country splits into three pieces or it stays one. No matter what happens, we have those mega bases, and there's many in Congress and certainly in this administration, Republican and Democrat alike that really like that. Part of the reason I think that we went into Iraq was to reestablish a stronger foothold than we had in Saudi Arabia, but also a more economical, a more flexible, in terms of who we want to hit. If you want to hit Syria, can you do it from Iraq? Of course you can. And now you can do it from bases that will support any type of airplane you want, any number of troops in barracks. I mean we can do things from Iraq. And this is what they wanted. So, yeah, we don't like being lied to. But quite frankly, many people in the Congress, and certainly this administration, when they call Iraq a success, they mean it, and this is why.

    We're in Iraq to stay. And can we strike Iran from Iraq?  Well, I don't know if we'll do that next week, but we can.

    et al - Can we be real?? (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:30:51 AM EST
    The Demos made statement after statement attacking Saddam, etc. That's just a fact and I can show'em if you haven't seen them. So it is their war.

    If the Demos defund the war, or fail to fund the war, or tie Bush's hands, the end result will be that the anti-war Left will rightfully be blamed, just as it was in Vietnam.

    Why? Because of the political message they have been sending to the terrorists in Iraq for the past four years, just as did the riots, demonstrations, etc., during Vietnam.

    What I find very interesting in all this moaning, is a total lack of discussion was to why the Left is taking this tactic.

    Does it believe that the long term benefit to the country will be good?

    Does it believe that the well known position that the terrorist want to aggressively spread their version of the Islamic faith will be stopped?

    Does it believe that the "honor killings," killing of gays and lesbians, women forced out of education, etc., will be stopped if we don't oppose them?

    Does the Left believe that it can bury its head in the sand, and just shut out the world?

    The Demos won a majority in the House, and have a one vote majority in the Senate. Thus they can, to a degree, control the agenda.

    But without a debate on the underlaying issues, such as I shown above, do you think you can actually win??

    Yelling Bush Lied, War Bad, Impeach (insert your favorite) will not convince anyone. Everyone understands that the intelligence was bad. Everyone has their own favorite reason why the invasion wasn't done the way they would have...

    These are all Monday Morning Quarterbacking, and are, without an agreement on the larger global issues, useless.

    Can anyone tell me why you haven't addressed these?? Is it because you have no answer? Is it because you have the answer but don't think the public can understand?

    Has the Left abandoned the Wilsonian position that FDR firmly put in place and all major Democrats have pushed since then?

    If the Left looked in a mirror, would it see a future in which America leads on human rights, or would it see an America withdrawn into its shores,  waiting for whatever comes??