The "Netroots" on Iraq: Defunding Takes Republicans

Again speaking for me exclusively.

To hear some in the "Netroots" (Update [2007-3-13 13:6:21 by Big Tent Democrat]: A good point from Kos to me, Stoller is not the "Netroots" - though I think Stoller is a big part of the "Netroots") tell it, defunding the Iraq Debacle by the Dem Congress is pipe dream crazy talk. Here is Matt Stoller:

Respectfully, your pet solution is not THE ANSWER. There is no THE ANSWER. Strategy is actually putting out a set of parameters that actually map to reality, and the reality is that there is not the discipline in the party to do what you suggest . . .

For Stoller, defunding can not be done. At least not by Democrats. For Stoller, it takes REPUBLICANS to defund:

There's only one endgame for Iraq, and that's to force Republicans in Congress to recognize that it's their [behinds] on the line.

Is Matt's reliance on Republicans realistic? It strikes me as delusional.

I respect Matt, Chris, MYDD, daily kos and their whole notion of "Netroots." Indeed, it was my hope that the Netroots would lead on this issue. I think it is clear now that the "Netroots" will not. I think we have a good faith difference of opinion. I hope some will heed my call on this issue. My views are expressed in the over 20 posts found here. The essence is this:

For in reality there are two positions available now - for ending the Debacle or for continuing it. Woolsey supports ending it. Putnam supports the Debacle. It is that simple. And the choice is binary. Because President George W. Bush makes it so. As Woolsey says, Bush listens to no one, except Cheney.

Many ask 'so what is a Democratic Congress to do?' With Mitch McConnell promising filibusters to all attempts to revoke the Iraq AUMF, cap troop levels and to cut funding for the Iraq Debacle, what is it I am asking of the Democratic Congress?

Let me explain again - I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.

Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.

But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that i t will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that politcal battle too.

Understand this, if you want to end the Iraq Debacle, this is the only way until Bush is not President. If you are not for this for ending the war, tell me what you do support. I think this is the only way. And if you shy away from the only way to end the Debacle, then you really are not for ending the war are you?

The "Netroots" seems not to agree with me on this. Maybe the next one. This one is by far the most important. But disagreement is disagreement. We can't work for the "same thing" if we don't agree what that THING should be.

I believe the Netroots needs to pressure the Dem House. I believe it can. I believe the Dem House can put no pressure on Bush and the Republicans without feeling pressure from activists and the Netroots. Matt disagrees. Chris Bowers seems to too. And from what I have read, so do the other Left blogs. For leadership I agree with on this issue, I have to look elsewhere.

< How U.S. Attorneys Get Appointed | Latest WH Lie: All U.S. Attorneys Suspect for Not Investigating Voter Fraud >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm not prepared. . . (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:50:11 AM EST
    to weigh in on the substantive matter here (defunding -- is it possible, will it end the war, etc).  But I'd just like to point out:

    The "Netroots" seems not to agree with me on this.

    This is more an argument within the so-called Netroots (a notion that, unlike you, I have relatively little respect for) but rather an argument among the various roots.  In this argument I rather suspect that Stoller's position is in a pretty small minority.

    In the Netroots? Let's be honest, these guys, Matt, Chris, Kos, David et al, have been, and rightly so, quick to think of themselves as leaders on the Nets. I accept that they are.

    On Iraq thye have been AWOL. By design one presumes.

    I disagree with them.


    Well. . . (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    Kos at least constantly disclaims any leadership role in the so-called netroots (although I agree he sure acts like the padrone).  I don't know about Stoller and Bowers -- out of respect for the large amount of time and effort they put into the Democratic Party I stay away from their blog where I'm pretty sure I'd wind up disagreeing with lots of what they say.

    I'm not aware of any anti-defunding sentiment on the front page at dKos and if you look at the diaries I think you'll find almost universal agreement with your position.  That's what I was referring to when I said Stoller's position is in the minority.


    Pro-defunding sentiment is also lacking (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:20:13 AM EST
    I've expressed my frustration to you on this (none / 0) (#10)
    by TexDem on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:47:14 AM EST
    As to Kos et al, I'm afraid my voice is way to small to be heard there. Most of my comments there pass by with hardly a notice. The most recc' on a comment I've had is somewhere around 45, mostly in the 4-8 range with an occasional foray into the 10-15 range. Not enough to really catch on.

    Have you communicated with Larry Johnson on this? Does he see it this way? I don't read him everyday so I may have missed it. But he is a respected voice and is heeded.


    Kos (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    communicated to me his disagreement on this.

    The idea that Stoller's view is universal (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:12:49 PM EST
    or even widespread.

    I hope he speaks up on it.


    I've come around. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by RenaRF on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:04:55 AM EST
    I'm hardly an expert on this subject.  I've read what the major papers have had to say about, and have also seen all the punditry on cable news.  And of course, I've read the blogs on the subject.  When the Democrats first took back Congress, the issue of defunding came up.  I have to admit that at that time I wasn't behind it - not because I opposed it per se, but rather because I had seen no clear explanation of how it would work.  In other words, once defunded, how does the withdrawal take place?  What measures will be necessary to ensure the safety of troops as they are withdrawn?

    I still don't have a clear understanding of how those key issues are going to be addressed, but at the same time it's become absolutely crystal clear: anything short of defunding means the war persists.  There is no bargaining - there's no making the "other side" see reason on this.  There isn't a non-binding resolution that will make the administration change course.  

    I do, however, wish I understood the practical (rather than political) ramifications better.

    How will withdrawal be achieved? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:19:35 AM EST
    That will always be an Administration chore.

    Do you think you can control Bush? That is the mistake of everyone involved on our side.

    You have to take away his money.


    Sadly I believe you're right. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by RenaRF on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    It is the ONE thing.  And back on the political side of things, a move to defund should be repeatedly and consistently couched as the only option left by an unreasonable and inflexible Executive.  

    Rumsfeld hid enough $$ in the pentagon budget (none / 0) (#25)
    by PaintyKat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:41:23 PM EST
    I fear to carry them on any number of endeavors.

    I tried following some of it at first but it got too complex.  Wonder if something like what ePluribus did with the contracts research turned up anything in the Pentagon budget.

    This would determine how much pressure this would even put on Bush.

    How was it carried out during Viet Nam.  Wasn't the war defended then.  If so, a historical look might be interesting before adopting a proposal if we want to hand the legislature something ready to go.  They have staff but we have more.  They have better access though.

    I think there is plenty of support on dkos for defunding but it is not directed because I suspect folks don't understand the process and I sure don't.

    How many serious Israel supporters are there in the House?  Is there any compromise or tradeoffs?

    I might be too process oriented to be of much assistance.  My suspicion is that all those cogs are in place in your analogy already and I am behind the curve.

    I support defunding but would like to know more about the realities the legislators are dealing with.  My info is all pretty topical.



    well... (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by leoncarre on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:06:14 PM EST
    I am a member of the netroots, and I do support your plan.  More to the point, so does my Congresswoman Doris Matsui.

    It's going to take this much... one person at a time, one member of Congress at a time.  

    When the netroots disconnects from the political process, then we have two enclaves talking to themselves.  By this I mean when the netroots mistakes itself for "the people's voice," when that voice only makes itself heard in discussions we hold here, on dk, on mydd etc.

    The crossover is the media.  We need to do more to get your plan out to the media.  How do representatives find out what the people want?  From correspondence?  From polls?  From anti-war demonstrators hanging out in their offices?  From petitions?  Or from reading the newspaper?  Certainly not from the Internet.

    Take your plan broader, send it to those who can do something... The alternative is, as the Talking Heads sang, "Stop Making Sense."

    Thanks (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    Good advice.

    Netroots - Radical Reformers? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    I think that both of your views are misguided. Ending the War takes politicians and republicans and democrats fill that role. However, change happens when the political winds start blowing in a new direction. Rapid and dramatic change happens through the impetus of radical reformers.

    Sometimes life moves too fast to keep up. I don't quite understand the NetRoots movement and its political relevance. I think that the internet does have a role to play in politics, because it is an efficient means to consolidate voices and put pressure on politicians. However, it does not change the fundamental nature of politics, it just adds another layer.

    I think ending this war, through defunding or any other means, requires political will and strategic manuevering. The politicians listen to the public through many channels of communciation. THe internet is an efficient way to get voices heard by politicians. But, politics still moves at a snail's pace. To end the war by a specific date might be feasible in the ideal political world if the proper pressures are brought to bear on the poloticians and they realize the correct political choice is to vote for defunding the war on a specified date. This is idealistic. Appealing to the morality of politicians to make the greater morale choice is useless not because politicians lack morales, but because polical effectiveness and relevance requires that a politician be pragmatic and being pragmatic serves the greater moral good in the end.

    In the real world, it takes much greater commitment from radical reformers. Going on blogs and making grandiose plans and demanding action might get your voice heard eventually, but it is not the work of a reformer. Effective radical reformers have always operated in the streets making speeches directly to the people placing the radical reformer directly on the radar screens of the political elite. Being a radical reformer is dangerous work. Making  a viewpoint known on the internet is safe and, in todays world with the amount of voices on the internet, largely autonomous and irrelevant.

    If you really want change, you don't advocate for it from a keyboard to a monitor. You demand it - on the street. You make yourself visible. After your voice is heard and you become targeted by the elite and, in most cases largely discredited or silenced by the elite, the left politicians move in and make change that the people and nation accept and need. But, the radical reformer is not detered by his or her eventual demise, because they are reacting to a calling - not making a career choice. That is how radical political change happens.

    I am not a radical reformer, anymore than any other voice on the internet. I am waiting to hear the call from someone in the street. When that call comes people should rally in support. Perhaps Kucinich is that reformer, but he has yet to gather the support in the street.

    The discussion about what plan netroots shoud take is political and, in many senses democratic, but if defunding is THE ANSWER and there is not the political will to adopt this solution, it will take a political hurricane to change the landscape to a point of adopting this position. That means more noise than talking loud on the net, or even consolidating voices on the net, imo, especially if you want it done before 2008.

    For leadership on defunding (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by PaintyKat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:56:22 PM EST
    Couldn't you find a legislator who is pro-defunding and work with him/her and their staff to get your message out and to get suggestions for what might be the issues for different House members and what might be the most workable method for swaying them if there is any.

    I think you might be able to amplify your voice and then folks would know who needs calls, letters, or personal visits.  Find out when visitations can take place.

    Guess my suggestions all involve working within the system but that is my experience.  Can't even offer up my legislators because they are Bush buddies all the way.

    What I have been getting calls, letters, and emails about is calling legislators about stopping the escalation and sending more troops into peril.  Wonder if that is the major focus right now and if there isn't some trading of support.  

    Not in a position to have answers.

    There are two different things to comment on here (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by a gilas girl on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:40:41 AM EST
    first is your disagreement with the Netroots, and the second is the substantive issue of defunding. But let me add that for me, the second also has two different aspects to comment upon, thus making a far too complicated post for a single comment.  Then again, it is a gilas girl typing, so why wouldn't it be convoluted?  

    Nonetheless, to the first, I've never bought into the idea of "The Netroots" as it is conceptualized and acted on by its active proponents and participants.  I've always felt that Markos and his colleagues on the net have slightly missed the mark in both their analysis of what the Netroots is and their conceptualization of what it can/should do. But that's because I disagree with where they draw their political and action boundaries.  Like Larry upthread, I do see this as a disagreement within the netroots.  But I'd agree with you that Kos, Stoller and the other boyz you list do represent a kind of leadership of this leviathan some folks like to call the netroots. For me disagreeing with those types isn't so unusual, but it is for you, hence some of the attention to this, or?  I'd also note that Markos does sometimes talk out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to talk of "The Netroots" as an entity: at times he makes great claims for it and to it, and others he backs away.  Rightly so, as discussions around it can tend to get very grandiose rather quickly, but he's not always consistent in that sense.  

    As for defunding, I've read some of the discussions on dkos about it, but have refrained from commenting for the most part.  Mostly because I find the discussions are framed (for lack of a better term) inadequately.  Granted this is the problem with the bulk of political discussions in our society, but this one is framed in a way that doesn't allow for particularly productive engagement, it seems to me.  You've set it up this way as well: either support defunding or you support continuing the Iraq debacle.  This kind of a take strikes me as fundamentally missing how things like bringing about the end of a seriously mistaken, mismanaged, and ill-conceived military operation are actually achieved.  I understand that at the moment, the tool we have is a Democratically controlled Congress, so we turn to legislation, and budget oversight.  But the truth is, that even with a Democratically-controlled Congress, Congress by itself can't do it.  Without a sympathetic Executive, that level of change has to come from a vast sea change of the political culture, which means a multi-pronged strategy that is a bit more long-term.  In short, I'm going back to our own, long-term discussions about movement vs. electoral politics.  I see this as fitting right into that. I am as happy as anyone that we have a Democratically-controlled Congress and that the outcome of the 2006 elections was as it was, but that wasn't the solution.  It was just one piece of the puzzle.  So my own position on defunding is rather simple: I'm in favor of continuing the discussion, of keeping defunding on the table as the tool of choice for Congress, but let's stop talking about defunding as "the solution" for ending the debacle in Iraq.  Start talking about it in the context of how it is going to have to happen: many different facets of US society are going to have to come together to reject the mess that Bush Co has brought us and to do something to get us out of it.  Draw connections across institutions, make alliances, redefine what Bush Co keeps trying to foist upon us.  That's how big assed military operations are ended when outright military victory or well-defined executive/administrative action isn't possible.  The illegitimacy of it all has to become real throughout political and public culture.  That's a time consuming and extra-electoral, even extra-legislative process.  But elections, legislation and Congressional oversight are an important piece of it.  

    Now, the netroots (whatever or whomever that may be) does have a huge role to play in this bigger process, but heretofore they have skimmed that role, I'd argue.  This is both my biggest disagreement and my greatest disappointment with this whole "netroots movement" thing and why I tend to just stay out of the discussions. I still maintain that the best way to bring about the changes that we claim to want to bring about is to reframe our public political discussions, to work to rebuild a robust public sphere where real democratic politics can again take place.  The netroots could be central to such an endeavor, but in order to do so, the netroots has to escape the too narrow framing of politics that our political culture espouses.  That's where they've failed.  While they've brought some great changes within that framework, they are still operating with the same parameters that, imho, are part of the basic problem.          

    A lot there but one point (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    I want to make immediately - how to get to defunding is wqorhty of discussion.

    But that defundng is how is can end seems not oopen to discussion unless you think George Bush is going to somehow change.

    In that sense, I do not accept your critique of me.

    As for the rest, a detailed response will be forthcoming tonight.


    la plus ca change... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by a gilas girl on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    In that sense, I do not accept your critique of me.

    well, i wouldn't expect anything else. but I don't think I made myself very clear.  I don't expect George Bush to change, and therein lies the reason I don't think that defunding in sich is going to end it either.  Defunding is a means to the end of end Iraq, but it is not itself the end to Iraq.  That recognized, there's no reason not to argue for and keep defunding as part of the public discussion.

    I'm just oppossed to limiting the discussion of getting out of Iraq to defunding alone.  I think in order to get out of Iraq the focus of all discussions has to be about the illegitimacy of Iraq, the illegitimacy of Bush's war. Because in the end, that is what will bring about the end. No war in history has ever been ended by budgets alone.  


    Okay to have honest disagreements (none / 0) (#5)
    by MetaData on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:12:24 AM EST
    I agree with Matt when he criticizes your position that Defunding is THE solution. No, it is just ONE solution, and probably not the most likely to succeed. Matt's solution (if I may speak for him), is to pressure the Blue Dog Dems and other Iraq war supporters by making them worry about 2008 primary challenges. Let's call Matt's proposal: "We're making a list, checking it twice".

    The truth remains that the Democratic Party establishment in general, and the moderate (i.e. Conservative) and DLC wing in particular, is deathly afraid of being called soft on terror or non-supportive of the troops. A few of them may even share a belligerent position on the US Middle-east, and would fall right in line with any expansion of the war.

    The Dem establishment is certainly more comfortable continuing to fund the war, and letting the Iraq fiasco grind down the Republicans in 2008. I labeled this a cynical and immoral political strategy, but one that would probably be effective.

    I was also the one commenting that the Democrats didn't get us out of Vietnam, either (Nixon did), and that the most direct route out of Iraq would be for the Republicans to realize their brand has been so damaged, that the ONLY way out of certain failure in 2008 will be to abandon the neocons, Bush and Cheney.

    Somehow, I think the Republicans will be more coldly calculating on this than the Conservative Democrats. (Let's watch for Giuliani do the Nixon.) So, I think that pressure on the Republicans would bear fruit the soonest. Drawing the line in the sand a little more to the left, escalating the criticism of Bush/Cheney, and supporting the progressive caucus would be a better strategy than trying to appease the Blue Dogs.

    Thus I agree most with Matt's "making a list; checking it twice" strategy.

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:18:07 AM EST
    the other solution is primaries in 2008?



    Fear of their jobs (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by MetaData on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    At the moment, fear of the right-wing media machine is greater than their fear of an anti-war challenger in 2008.

    The "Making a list, checking it twice" strategy is about bringing pressure to bear on pro-war democrats by encouraging primary challenges.


    Well sure (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    but that requires being for a proposal.

    And Matt endorses appeases the Blue Dogs (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:23:20 AM EST
    So not at all sure what you mean by your comment.

    We don't have time (none / 0) (#14)
    by TexDem on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    Do you not realize that if this crowd isn't stopped now that by Jan. 2009 we will be in Iran and Iraq will only be a base camp for THAT action. We don't have time to make nice or wait on Giuliani and why are you ceding the WH anyway?
    This administration is delusional. The only way to stop them is to quit feeding the funds.

    BTW, if you haven't seen this before check it out.



       1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
       2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
       3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
       4. requires excessive admiration
       5. strong sense of entitlement
       6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
       7. lacks empathy
       8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
       9. arrogant affect.

            (see also full list in DSM-IV-TR, p. 717)

    Reason doesn't work with these guys. Bush is nine for nine.


    Nixon's platform included ending the war. (none / 0) (#17)
    by MetaData on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    I'm not ceding the White House. I'm talking about the moment the Republican Party wakes up and realizes their brand has been so damaged, they will have no choice but to pull a Nixon. That will happen at some point after pro-war candidates start go down in the polls... hmmmm.

    So, my point is that if the war continues as unpopular as now, then Giuliani, or some other Republican candidate, will (inevitably?) move to an anti-war postion. This will happen before 2008, i.e. during the campaign season which has already started.

    You are right. We don't have time, and it would probably give Bush cover to escalate, while pretending to de-escalate. But, even Bush has to start talking anti-war to help save the Republican brand.

    The biggest pressure we could bring to bear on the Republicans?  Well, Iraq has tremendously weakened Bush and the Republican Party. How about going for Bush on all the other issues: Restoring higher taxe rates on wealthy estates? Funding Universal Health care for children? Sure, Bush can veto, but then our "list-making" gets easier and easier.


    I agree re: Republicans, but forget Bush (none / 0) (#24)
    by TexDem on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:14:33 PM EST
    Bush is incapable of feeling pressure. He and his cabal are so self absorbed to ever admit any of their errors. To them the way to get the public back on their side is to have another grave threat and that threat is Iran.
    We can plan for 2009 all we want but until we have set a date definite to get out of Iraq we are still at risk of going into Iran. Unless the Congressional Dems recognize this, anything short of getting us out of Iraq before the '08 is nothing more than an implicit okay to Bush et al.
    I used to think Rove was smarter than this, but now I think he is just as NPD as the rest of the bunch only he has a slim crack of reality, as  seen in his rush to correct his GJ testimony to avoid Libby's fate. Libby didn't suffer this trait. But Rove is back to feeling invincible and because of that they are all vulnerable to a dose of reality if the Dems have the courage to provide it.

    Here is my big issue with the defunding strategy (none / 0) (#21)
    by MetaData on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:25:52 PM EST
    I agree that the war should be ended. I agree that defunding it is or would be a morally correct policy that would make the world a better place. I even agree that defunding SHOULD be a mechanism for ending the war, but...

    Why do you think that defunding would actually stop Bush/Cheney from doing anything? Won't they just declare Unitary Presidential Priviledge for the Commander and Chief to Defend the Country, and move funds for Iraq from elsewhere.

    This is a radical administration, intent on retaining power to run with neocon dreams of Middle-East dominance. They don't play by the rules of democracy (like obeying laws), and they have considerable media support.

    Second big problem

    A lot of Democrats have a 1950s vision of our country, as if the Congress makes laws and the President implements them. They want to live in a the comfortable world of bipartisanship and collegiality. Compromises that feed pork to the voters back home.  How many have the capacity to believe that the Republican Party isn't playing that game?

    Third Problem

    The Democrats are deathly afraid of the "soft on terrorism" accusation and the VRWC. They have internalized this timidity. The moment the Bush/Cheney administration instigates an incident with Iran, the Democrats will cave once again and give them more war powers?

    Where is your magic wand to cause the Democratic Party to actually stand up to the Bush/Cheney/Neocon government, especially when it comes to a national security issue, like a war? They don't have the psychological and philosophical make up to understant the problem.

    Is "defund the war" your magic bludgeon?

    In the absence of a Presidency who plays by the rules, and in the absence of Democratic Party willing to challenge Bush, Does your calling on the Democratic Party to defund the war amount to pretty much the same thing as "making a list, checking it twice"?

    That begs the question of what we should we do if they (the Democrats, not the netroots) don't go along with the defunding argument?

    Ron Paul backs defunding... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:35:04 PM EST

    Voters spoke very clearly in November: they want the war to end.  Yet Congress has taken no steps to defund or end a war it never should have condoned in the first place.

    On the contrary, Congress plans to spend another $100 billion or more in an upcoming Iraq funding bill-- more even than the administration has requested.  The 2007 military budget, $700 billion, apparently is not enough.  And it's all done under the slogan of "supporting the troops," even as our policy guarantees more Americans will die and Walter Reed will continue to receive casualties.

    Defunding (none / 0) (#23)
    by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:40:10 PM EST
    I think we're running out of time before regional war breaks out- whether it's from the next escalation or the one after that.

    I remember from an earlier post ,on dkos, BTD, that you stated Bush needs to get to Iran through Iraq. I think you were right. We need  to shut Bush down at some date certain, not a vague date sometime in 2008 or January 2009. The way I see it we have to defund the War. Pick a date, publish the date and talk about the date that funding ends then just refuse to  pass the funding bills for the war.

    Bush intends to be the Commander-in-Chief to the end of his term; to do that he needs a war. We have to use the Power of the Purse, it might get his attention.