Iraq Supplemental: Does It Matter If The Withdrawal Timeline is Nonbinding?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:17:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Amidst the celebration, is it uncouth of me to point out that the Iraq supplemental funding bill that will come out of conference will almost certainly contain a NON-binding withdrawal timeline?

Markos writes:

Reid did an incredible job of keeping Democrats together. I mean, he even brought Ben Nelson aboard! Pretty impressive.

Hello? He got Nelson and Hagel because the language was NON-binding! Did anyone hear Hagel's floor speech on the issue? HE stressed that point.

Now the headlines are fun and all but here is some constructive advice for the "pragmatists" - you want to force Bush to veto? Then you have to place MAXIMUM pressure on Pryor, Nelson, Hagel, Smith and any other soft supporters in the Senate. They must be made to accept a binding timeline. If that happens, I will apologize to every "pragmatist" I have criticized on this. At the least, if such a bill is passed, Bush WILL veto it, particularly if the March 31, 2008 date holds.

Obviously I think there is virtually no chance of that happening. But I would love to be wrong.

And what happens after Bush vetoes such a bill? Then it is time to, you guessed it, execute my strategy:

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.

I think, frankly, I am certain, that the nonbinding bill is what Bush will see on his desk and he will sign it.

And the war is funded. So celebrate while you can. I think it remains a loss.

< Suit Against Rumsfeld Dismissed | Pat Tillman Family Respond to the Report on His Death >

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.

Iraq Supplemental: Does It Matter If The Withdrawal Timeline is Nonbinding? | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Reasons I think Bush will still sign the bill (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by roboleftalk on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:56:49 PM EST

There is no "better" bill to be had and McConnell knows it. The senate republicans behavior indicates to me Bush will sign.
Several pugs are stating the troops need the money by Ap 15. No way that happens if he vetos.
Bush will never get a bill he likes, binding, non-binding, whatever. He thinks all of it intrudes on his imperial, I mean presidential, powers. He will use a signing statement anyway.

Plus, Bush just hates to veto (none / 0) (#2)
by Demi Moaned on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:07:59 PM EST

And frankly, why should he bother. His signing statements get rid of all inconveniences.

[ Parent ]

Nonbinding (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:10:01 PM EST

makes it silly to veto it.

[ Parent ]

Is it totally non-binding? (none / 0) (#6)
by Coldblue on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:36:09 PM EST

Russ Feingold said this on 3/14/07

The Reid resolution would require the President to begin redeploying combat forces not essential to the three limited functions within 120 days, with a goal of finishing redeployment by the end of March 2008.

Today, Feingold said this

"Today marks an important step toward ending the war in Iraq. For the first time, the U.S. Senate will pass binding legislation requiring the President to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. While this is long overdue, it is a big step in the right direction and it brings us closer to ending our involvement in this disastrous war."

Is Feingold wrong?

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 01:22:17 AM EST

He is. He'll be right when it comes out of conference.

[ Parent ]

: He'll say it is nonbinding then (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 01:22:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Most people don't make these distinctions (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:22:17 PM EST

Whether the language is binding or not, the Democrats win in the short term if Bush signs the bill ("Democrats stare down Bush and win!"), or if he vetoes ("Bush Rejects will of people, Congress; defunds troops with veto."). In the end, the question is how badly he wants his money. I'd give him a 50:50 of signing whatever the conference report is.

In the long run, of course, it's better for the Democrats if Bush vetoes; Rove et al must know this.

In the long run (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:28:49 PM EST

before or after veto, IF the Dems fund the IRaq Debacle, it is a win for the GOP.

More so now, because the Dems are acting as if they can do something about it, which they can of course.

This is the dangerous game for them, they have now created the expectation that they CAN stop the war.

Which means if they do not, THEY OWN it too.

[ Parent ]

I can already (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by roboleftalk on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:36:50 PM EST

hear Bush's signing speech, all about being bipartisan, the nation working as one, together to complete the mission.

[ Parent ]

It baffles me (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:01:16 PM EST

why this bill funds for so long. Why not have it run out in 6 months?

[ Parent ]

: Because in 6 months (none / 0) (#11)
by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:41:43 PM EST

they won't be able to pass another bill.

[ Parent ]

It starts with a single step (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by MSS on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:13:45 PM EST

Sure, I want our kids out of Iraq NOW. They should never have gone. I argree that all the politicians are way to nervous to take a stand.

But they started. They finally said, out loud, that we need to get out.

Next, impeach Gonzales.

One step at a time.

Bush wiil sign. I called todays vote (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:40:18 PM EST

here, on March 19.

Take the money, ignore the coverletter.

Even if it isn't binding (4.00 / 1) (#13)
by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:01:25 PM EST

The narrative that's emerging is setting up powerful expectations in the public of a set date for withdrawal, and if something happens to that expectation between now and when it lands on Bush's desk, there's going to be hell to pay with voters. If the Dems themselves muck that up, I'm afraid they're going to be the ones to pay the price, not Republicans.

And Bush is playing along:

President Bush Disappointed by Senate Vote on Iraq War Supplemental
The President is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law. In the two weeks since the Senate defeated a similar proposal, General Petraeus reports encouraging signs are already emerging. The Senate, which unanimously confirmed the General for this mission, needs to support him by providing our troops the funding they need - not by mandating failure. As the President said, "Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win."

What I don't understand is why Feingold is calling it binding. He couldn't seriously be confused on this, could he?

Russ calling it binding (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:44:03 PM EST

is kinda like a signing statement.

One of the criteria courts use in interpreting legislation is legislative intent. Feingold's making what record he can, both for the courts, and the media.

[ Parent ]

: Interesting (none / 0) (#15)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 12:11:47 AM EST

I guess two can at least try to play that game.
Unfortunately there's about a thousand news stories out there right now all saying otherwise.

[ Parent ]

This is the best we can do, for now. (3.00 / 1) (#19)
by lilybart on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:09:06 AM EST

I am really tired of the DEM bashing on this site.

Just exactly what were we supposed to do?
I think it's amazing that the Senate also passed this legislation. It is a slap in the face to Bush, and really, what else can we do?

Bush will not listen to anyone.
The only way to stop the war is impeachment, but I am sure that Bushco never thought the Congress would get this far.

And if I may remind everyone, funding is the only area where congress can be effective at this time. If Bush vetos bill after bill there will be NO FUNDING. Goal acheived.

I know they will just get into the opium trade even more heavily to fund their secret wars, but at least we officially cut them off.

I wish you would engage the argument (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:36:24 AM EST

instead of being tired of things.

[ Parent ]

I DID engage the arguement (none / 0) (#21)
by lilybart on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:43:53 AM EST

I stated that this is all we can do now, the first step, and it is amazing that it worked so far.

If we want to defund, then we are succeeding by sending Bush bills he will not sign.

[ Parent ]

You really believe he'll veto it, Lilybart? (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:59:18 AM EST

Why would he? When has he ever lived up to everything in anything else he's agreed to?

Once he has the funding, the deadlines mean zip. Of, course "non-binding" was just another word for "zip" anyway.

There is no dem bashing here. There is "bill" bashing.

[ Parent ]

I disagree. (none / 0) (#24)
by lilybart on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:13:04 AM EST

I do not want the DEMS to become the lock-step, no independent thought republicans, but iimagine if the DEMS held together on this bill, told the American people that congress just gave Bush a deadline to do something toward actually ending this war.

This is what the REPS would do. They would shout from the rooftops that his bill is what the Americans asked for in the last election results and in all the polls. Then let Bush be the one to insist it isn't binding, and then the attention is back on the failure of a president.

This is Bush's war and it must remain Bush's war. We cannot let them give this war to us and then also the blame.

If this bill was binding it might make it harder for the DEMS to make sure this war is always BUSH's blunder.

And this focus would include bloggers who, if they stopped poo-poo-ing this bill, would add to the pressure on Bush.

I think this is the reason I am losing patience with your constant Dem bashing posts. And don't try to pretend that this is "bill bashing" because it is not. If this bill is the best we can get right now, we could get better and build momentum if people stopped the negativity and tried to take this bill and leverage more pressure on this administration.

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Edger on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:10:01 AM EST

imagine if the DEMS held together on this bill, told the American people that congress just gave Bush a deadline to do something toward actually ending this war.

You just described BTD's idea. Almost. Imagine "if the DEMS held together on this bill, told the American people that congress just gave Bush a deadline" after which - no mo money. Period.

Then let Bush be the one to insist it isn't binding, and then the attention is back on the failure of a president.

Imagine.

[ Parent ]

Even David Sirota (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by Edger on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:30:38 AM EST

is moving closer to it this morning. Not quite there yet - but seeing the value, and asking for the means:

For the antiwar movement, there are only three avenues for success: 1) Engineering a Senate filibuster of all Iraq spending
2) Successfully converting pro-war, pro-"clean"-supplemental Democrats like these listed here into antiwar Democrats who will hold out for an even stronger antiwar bill or 3) Passing a supplemental with strong antiwar provisions intact and with enough pro-war Democrats willing to vote for it because they feel pressure.
I have heard no one make an argument that option 1 or 2 is even remotely possible (thus, not surprisingly, I haven't heard of anyone or any organization putting together a cohesive strategy to try to do this). Thus, we are left with option 3.

[ Parent ]

That column of David's answers a few questions (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 03:41:48 PM EST

but poses quite a few more, like: What exactly is it about a clean supplemental these Blue Dogs like so much? The President as King? War forever? Being able to wash their hands once and for all of that nasty ol' congressional oversight and funding power? Not to mention, Why should there be anything called a "pro-war Democrat" - is "war" something anyone is really "for"?

It does at least clarify a bit more what he means about dealing with "what is." I think his points on careful targeting vs blanket pressure and looking for alternative routes for pressuring are very good.

But there's a 4) David doesn't mention: Writing a supplemental that gives Bush his funds but has a binding end-of-Occupation date that pro-war Democrats will go along with because their only other option would be to have no funding supplemental at all. Why isn't that an "avenue for success" worth winding up the bandwagon for?

[ Parent ]

4) is pretty well (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Edger on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 03:55:06 PM EST

defunding after a date certain. No?

I don't know what "about a clean supplemental these Blue Dogs like so much", other than they are right of the DLC and so lean to supporting Bush?

[ Parent ]

: Of course it is (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:01:46 PM EST

Just a bit of that flying into the wind. :)

[ Parent ]

Now you are talking (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:14:53 AM EST

You're get a little wide eyed and shrill it seems to me, but I LOVE it!

Go!

[ Parent ]

Ad hominem attack? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by lilybart on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:21:46 AM EST

So, only main posters are allowed to call other people names? :)

[ Parent ]

: Just Jeralyn (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:29:16 AM EST

Neither, Chris, John or I get to . . .
That's why she is so mean . . .

[ Parent ]

Welcome to the tales of Uncle Remus (none / 0) (#33)
by TexDem on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 01:27:43 PM EST

... and Brer Rabbit said; "please don thro me inta that thar briar patch, I jus' hate that thar briar patch."

Silly Dems.

[ Parent ]

So is that your idea? (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:14:08 AM EST

Will you beat the drum for it? How?

I can ge tbehind that. Tell me more about how you see your plan being carried out.

[ Parent ]

i believe he will sign it if (none / 0) (#27)
by conchita on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:15:00 AM EST

is non-binding. why wouldn't he?

[ Parent ]

A slap in the face (none / 0) (#23)
by Ben Masel on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:08:47 AM EST

Not as effective as a closed fist.

[ Parent ]

I'm taking a wait and see attitude now. (none / 0) (#12)
by mentaldebris on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:43:13 PM EST

If Bush vetoes he looks bad and it's back to the drawing board. PR Winner: Dems

Bush signs it -- bill passes. Winner: ?

The question is, what does Feingold read as binding that Hagel reads as non-binding?

As drafted, the legislation called for troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a non-binding goal that calls for the combat troops to be gone within a year.

So, does that mean the troops have to start coming home in 120 days but the date they should be gone is non-binding? It sure reads that way. If so, Bush would definitely veto this bill.

I have to admit I'm just shocked as hell to see Hagel finally put his vote where his mouth is. Didn't see that coming.

So, how many more will be peeled away as '08 starts weighing on their minds? This blind obedience to perhaps one of the lamest ducks ever seated in the WH is rather confounding.

Rove must have some really good dirt to keep these jokers in line while Bush pisses on them and continues to weaken their party. Hagel obviously feels he has nothing left to lose by being a troublemaker for BushCo. While I still think Hagel is a panderer, he's obviously better at reading the political tea leaves. His colleagues (and Independent "Democrat" Lieberman-ugh) are clueless.

Do have to wonder if this is partial payback for Bush in the DOJ fiasco. Thugs can't be happy about that little mess (very few are standing by his man)and they sure aren't pulling all the stops to halt this from landing on his desk as is. They know it will make him look bad to the majority who want us out of Iraq.

Very interesting developments.

McClatchy on binding/non-binding (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by dave howard on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:17:41 AM EST

A McClatchy article has the following:

The terms would be binding to begin withdrawal within 120 days. They also would set a nonbinding goal of removing most American combat forces by March 31, 2008.

This seems to reconcile Hagel's and Feingold's statements,

[ Parent ]

: But since the 'surge' is supposed to be over (none / 0) (#32)
by fairleft on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 12:07:16 PM EST

well before 120 days from now, binding him to start troop withdrawals from the surged level doesn't cramp Bush at all. And, of course, the 'begin withdrawal' condition could be met by reducing our presence by a single soldier.
But, on the other hand, it's good to have any sort of limits put on the President. The bill would sort of make sure there is no Surge II on top of Surge I, if Bush was getting any ideas in that direction.

[ Parent ]