The Iraq Supplemental Funding Debate Thread 2

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:46:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The debate on the House Iraq supplemental funding bill, HR 1591 now reaches the debate on the bill itself. Rep. David Obey (D-WI), leads off for support of this bill.

As I did below, ~~I will be live blogging the debate~~. Sorry, duty called.

Obey's argument - 'we try to do three thing with this bill - (1) direct monies to the right war, Afghanistan, (2) protect the troops, and (3)send a message to the Iraqi politicians. This bill sets a timetable for getting out of Iraq. It sets benchmarks, and set "a target" for ending our incolvement under any circumstances.'

Same argument. The bill does none of part 3 imo. The benchmarks are a charade as the PResident certifies there completion. The end date certain is phony as this Congress will never cut off funds in September 2008, two months before an election. This bill will never become law. It will be filibustered in the Senate and this bill will thus be weakened. IF it has a tooth left, the President will veto it.

It does not help politically. The Dems get nothing from this bill. It does not help towards ending the war in Iraq. This bill hurts this cause. It should be voted down.

< The Iraq Supplemental Funding Debate | Saying It Does Not Make It So: The Iraq Supplemental Is NOT A First Step To Ending The Debacle >

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.

The Iraq Supplemental Funding Debate Thread 2 | 15 comments (15 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

tony snow... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by selise on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:11:26 PM EST

tony snow just said (if i heard correctly) that bush would veto this bill.

don't know if i believe it... that would be a heck of a game of chicken with thousands of lives in the balance.

I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by taylormattd on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:22:43 PM EST

if repeated blustering from the White House, a la Tony Snow saying Bush will veto, will effect the media narrative on this one. It seems to me we will be more likely to see stories that claim Bush opposes a Democratic bill "to end the war." Not that it would be true, of course.


And the next weaker bill? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:12:49 PM EST

: Do you (none / 0) (#15)
by taylormattd on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:49:45 PM EST

think there will be a weaker bill next? I was wondering the same thing myself, because I am starting to see the possibility that Bush's lunacy, stonewalling, petulence, and tantrums might actually have the effect of pissing off folks, especially given they feel they've compromised. Don't you think it's possible that after a veto, there will be a stronger bill? Or (better yet!) no supplemental at all? That's my dream anyway . . .

You heard it right (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Edger on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:23:24 PM EST

The House of Representatives is considering an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The one they're considering has zero chance of being enacted into law; it's bad legislation; the President is going to veto it, and Congress will sustain that veto.

Press Briefing by Tony Snow, 22 March 07


: The trouble is (none / 0) (#4)
by Edger on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:40:14 PM EST

With Bush calling the bill "bad", how many ::progressives:: think "well then... it must be good"?

I feel sorry for (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by buhdydharma on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:08:22 PM EST

The shrimp farmers. Got their hopes up and everything. Just to have the bill go down in the Senate or get vetoed.

I wonder what silliness we will get next. After more months of wrangling.

Exactly, BTD. How did we ... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:33:17 PM EST

...wind up on the same side (again)?

: A stopped clock is right twice a day (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:44:47 PM EST

I won't say who the stopped clock is.

The 8/08 deadline is fake, meaningless, nothing (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by fairleft on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:49:26 PM EST

The August 2008 'end' is artificial, easily gotten around. The bill "permits U.S. forces to be kept in Iraq beyond the bill's August 2008 exit target date if they are training Iraqi soldiers or if they are engaging in missions to kill or capture members of al-Quaida and other terrorist organizations."

Bush has already defined the whole quagmire as a terrorist hunting operation, as "gittin' them in Iraq before they git us over here." So the deadline is nothing, meaningless.

Awful lot of blah, blah, blah... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by mentaldebris on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:35:16 PM EST

you go to congress with the bill you have, not the bill you want. No you don't. If it stinks you vote "no" and you start over.

Voting for Blue Dog "let Bush decide" crap that's being shoveled out by Pelosi and the "leaders" -- my, how pragmatic of them. How utterly accommodating they are.

This isn't just a start. It's a start, a middle, and the end.

I feel like I'm watching a disaster (how many more troops will die while Bush decides whether the benchmarks are reached) unfold and instead of rethugs, it's Dems pulling the strings. "Hope for the best" is no longer in my vocabulary.

If this bill passes the Democrats become full and invested co-owners of this war. Hope they've read the fine print because it says they will have full shares in the bloodshed and responsibility for the bills from here on out.

How can co-owning anything that Bush owns be good for Dems? Even pragmatically, it's a concept beyond my reasoning.

Just a quibble (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by LarryE on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:02:54 PM EST

This bill will never become law

is not a reason to vote against it. There was no chance that the Lee amendment would have been passed into law, either, but I damn well would have wanted a "yes" vote on that.

BTD (none / 0) (#7)
by roboleftalk on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:35:12 PM EST

have you read the deplorable, sniveling FP diary at dkos on this? Man, I hate this.

: I just responded to it (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:43:48 PM EST

Wait for it... (none / 0) (#13)
by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:54:05 PM EST

They have slapped so many non-war appropriations onto this bill that I suspect the next strategy will b to say that if you oppose the bill you are abandoning the Katrina victims.