The Iraq Supplemental: What Now?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:04:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The House and Senate have now passed versions of Iraq supplemental funding bills that both contain language either suggesting withdrawal dates or purporting to mandate to the President that all troops be removed from combat operations in Iraq.

The President continues to say:

He stood on the North Portico of the White House, flanked by Republican House leaders, and delivered his veto threat one more time. “We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we’ve got a troop in harm’s way, we expect that troop to be fully funded,” he said. “And we’ve got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders.

So what now? I'll explain what I am thinking on the flip.

I think we have to start by remembering what Bush has said about the Congress' power to end the war:

On congressional opposition: WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . . GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . . [T]hey can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress. . . .

I agree with President Bush on this. Congress can end the war through use of the Spending Power. This is not controversial. There appears to be agreement on this. There is a great divide on whether the Congress can impose managing conditions on the conduct of the war. For example, can the Congress tell the President how to deploy forces once it has authorized the use of force. For Democrats and the Congress, this is, at best, a debatable proposition.

I think it becomes clear then that the only practical ways for Congress to end the Iraq Debacle are (1) to repeal the Iraq AUMF or (2) to not not fund the Iraq Debacle. The first is difficult at best as it may require a veto-proof majority. The second merely requires that Congressional leadership stand firm and not propose bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.

But this need not be done immediately. Indeed, given the current politcs of the situation, it should not be done that way. My formulation remains as it was:

I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. . . .; Second, spend the time to the "not funding date" 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.

Is that what the House bill does? No, it does not. Instead of couching its withdrawal language in terms of appropriations, the House (and the Senate for that matter) used mandating language, in effect, trying to order the Commander in Chief to withdraw forces from Iraq. As I say above, this is at best, of questionable constitutionality. What is not questioned or questionable is the Congress' power to NOT fund the Iraq Debacle, thus ending it. Even Bush agrees with this.

My suggestion to the Democratic Congressional leadership is this: if you must, include your advisory conditions for funding with provisions for Presidential waivers, as the House bill does, but do NOT fund to August 31, 2008, when two months from an election, the Congress will certainly continue funding the war past the 2008 elections.

The March 31, 2008 nonbinding date contained in the Senate provision should become the announced date certain for NOT funding the Iraq Debacle. IF it is in the legislation so much the better. But that is of no legal effect. NOT funding the war can not be legislated. It can only be done.

And the INTENTION to NOT fund the war past the date certain is essential to a political strategy that will allow the Congress to do this. The American People must be forewarned of the date. They must internalize it. They must then internalize that if Bush does not withdraw troops past that date, then it is he who is abandoning the troops in harm's way - President Bush.

So what to do about the supplemental? Shorten the term of funding. Provide funds only through the end of this fiscal year, September 30, 2007. This is consistent in the short term with a proposal being floated by some conservative Dems:

Conservative Democrats also discussed alternatives for providing troop funding, if the standoff proves to be prolonged. For instance, Reps. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.) and Mike Ross (Ark.) suggested that the war funding be parceled out in three-month increments to force Bush to keep coming back for more.

But the intention of not funding past a date certain must accompany such a proposal. And that intention must be followed up on in determined fashion when the regular appropriations process for the Iraq Debacle begins again in June. The regular appropriations bill must contain funding ONLY through March 31, 2008.

Some will ask if this is only delaying the confrontation with Bush. In a manner of speaking there is a delay in the confrontation, but this approach will actually accelerate the end of the Debacle. It also has the significant advantages of allowing Democrats to fight the battle without pressure of having the prospect of the troops in the field being left in the lurch, allowing the Democrats to frame the battle, allowing for the continued buildup of political support for ending the Debacle, even allowing to see if the Escalation is "working."

This, to me, is the way for Democrats to end the Iraq Debacle AND win the political battle with the Republicans. Here is a way for Democrats to do the right thing in terms of policy - end the Iraq Debacle - and do the right thing politically.

< The "Faithful" Monica Goodling | Say What? House Agrees To Private Testimony from DOJ Officials >

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: What Now? | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I really like your statement (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:13:11 AM EST

that Americans must be allowed to internalize the March 2008 end date. I think your plan has everything required to work. Can't think of another thing to add other than let's just do it!

I've spent 4 months on this (5.00 / 6) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:21:57 AM EST

I've looked at the constitutional angles, the appropriation angles and I think the political angles.

That is why when I am called a purity troll by people who frankly, do not know what they are talking about, I get annoyed.


If, and I repeat, IF, Bush vetos (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by TexDem on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:06:21 AM EST

The Dems will get a chance to address the issue again. But my gut instinct is as I've stated before is that he won't veto. He'll bi#ch and moan about the pork but he'll take it. He'll take it because there is the outside chance the Dems will gain some courage and maybe follow your suggestion or some variation, ie; do only quarterly funding as has been suggested by some.

Call me Uncle Remus for repeating this but I think his threat of a veto is like Brer Rabbit's plea about not being thrown into the briar patch.

By passing any funding at all the Dems have played by his rules. Again, I repeat myself, he's playing Cavinball and they're playing Chess. Or, put another way, they're playing scrabble and he's playing Calvinball scrabble where xutzivo is a word. And it's a word because that's the letters he has and he's the first to play.


: Could be (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:13:13 AM EST

that you look at the constitutional angles, (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by conchita on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:49:26 AM EST

the appropriation, and the political angles is why i continue to read here. i trust your analysis and your judgment. i think your plan is solid, but lacks one thing - widespread dissemination and acceptance. do you have access to congressional offices where someone can work together with you or take this and make something happen? if not, would a serious public relations effort - emails, letters, calls to politicos, activists, and the media (traditional and non) make sense? it is possible that i may be in a position to help with this if it is something you would like to undertake. my email is in my profile at dkos.


I do what I can (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:31:12 PM EST

: clarification (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by conchita on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:05:56 PM EST

my comment was not meant as criticism. i think you are spot on and would like your ideas to have a wider audience.

the assumption (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by profmarcus on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:25:05 AM EST

that there is or can be a majority in congress that WANTS the war to end is, imho, far from certain... as with so many good, solid, rational proposals (the champion being steve clemons), i continually fail to see much in the way of rational behavior in our congressfolks and certainly not in the bush administration - at least not "rational" by any accepted norms, the most gaping lack of which is working toward the common good of the nation... that said, i am not trying to make a case for NOT pushing your proposal... if we despair of ever moving forward rationally, we're dead meat...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

I think there is a majority (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:34:36 AM EST

for ending the war.

In essence, the votes in Congress proved this.

How to end it is the sticking point.

What I try to do is to take into account the politics, law, and pr to create a proposal that can and will work.


I think there is a majority in Congress in favor.. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by cal11 voter on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:12:28 AM EST

of Bush ending the war. No majority in favor of taking over management of the war or even pulling the plug (funding) on the war.


: very good (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:55:39 AM EST

No, they want someone ELSE to end it (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by Dadler on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:01:57 PM EST

And that, Tent, is a far cowardly cry from actually wanting to end it THEMSELVES. It is cowardice masquerading as moderation. The prospect of having to face Republican political thuggery is all that is stopping them. They still do not know how to answer the Right's bullsh*t machine, which, if you think about it, means they utterly lack the imagination necessary.

And the lack of an imagination is intellectual death, which is what that party politics in this nation has suffered from from decades.

The Congress is merely doing as much as they think they can get away with without having to take too much political heat, without actually having to fight the political battle necessary.

They are afraid. Period.


Fair point (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:24:32 PM EST

Re: They are afraid. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Edger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:30:03 PM EST

They are afraid of Big Tents ideas for the same reason - it means standing up to the rethugs and facing them down, finally.


i don't disagree which is where btd and we come in (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by conchita on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:10:29 PM EST

we need to stay on them. the ideas we support may not come to fruition but if we continue to push them with them we will move the overton window. what i have learned in life is taking the first step is always the hardest, but then you become emboldened. chances are the iraq supplemental votes and the hearings will be a catalyst for something more substantial. perhaps momentum may even come of it. but we have be part of generating that momentum.


The more people they know are behind (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:32:50 PM EST

ending it now the less afraid they will be. That's what the ones yelling "purity trolls" forgot.


i'll be a purity troll or whatever they want (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by conchita on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:52:47 PM EST

to call me if it will engender change.


: They can even call me an (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:08:51 PM EST

Overton Troll if they want. It would at least be more descriptive.

I agree with your plan (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by roboleftalk on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:17:49 AM EST

but I bet there will still be troops in Iraq by the time the next president takes office. I say that not because I'm cynical, but because I just don't see the other happening.

If I had been Pelosi, the day after the election I would have told George no more funding bills and get withdrawal plans going. Extreme? Yes. Effective? Perhaps.

: Funding for a year (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:30:04 PM EST

to end December 31, 2007, would have been a good proposal.

Constitutional Obligation to Set Deployment Stds (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by seajane on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:01:01 PM EST

Mutha is on solid ground and I hope the Democrats don't blink. The Consistution gives CONGRESS, not the Executive the job of setting the rules for our military and the standards of training and preparation. These standards of accountability must be included in the funding bill otherwise Congress relinquishes their role.

Section 8 or Article 1 of the Constitution:
Section 8.
. . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
. . .
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . .

: Set the rules (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:17:35 PM EST

Fine. But the C-i-C in wartime determines the conduct of the war.

if you want to end the war (1.00 / 1) (#24)
by diogenes on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:23:00 PM EST

Pass a bill calling for the end on March 31, 2009. Bush gets his funding till he goes and President Hillary gets the credit for ending the war.

: Ummmm (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:55:35 PM EST

What will President McCain or Rudy do?

After the veto. (none / 0) (#23)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:11:39 PM EST

Maybe this should happen after the veto. The House and the Senate have both suggested dates for withdrawals of the troops so the idea has already been planted. Now when Bush vetoes, the Congress should give him the money and attach wording to the effect that Congress plans to not fund after such and such date, and that the President should plan accordingly. And then continue to hammer that message.

Look busy. Someone's watching. (none / 0) (#26)
by Sanity Clause on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 01:25:04 AM EST

Whatever they do, the Dems have to make it look like a conscious decision to take a certain course of action.

Dana Bash, CNN congressional correspondent, just reported (3/30/07, 9:30PM) that:

"A new analysis of funding for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan concludes the Army could continue to wage war through July without additional funding from Congress.

The analysis may bolster Democrats in their increasingly contentious veto showdown with President Bush."

If the m-s-media buy into non-funding as a winning strategy affirmatively promoted by the Dems, they have a chance of selling it to the people. On the other hand, if the Dems create the impression that they're just sitting on their thumbs until the '08 election, while the Bush administration implodes (certainly the impression I got from listening to Sen Bernie Sanders on Thom Hartmann's show today, repeating the litany of "We can't override a veto, and we can't win an impeachment conviction, but we can continue to make futile gestures of defiance. Just wait til '08!"), liberals and moderate Dems and undecideds are going to lose faith, and patience, pretty quickly.

The added risk over the next 18 months is that some rational Republicans may realize that they have to cut Bush loose before he drags them all down for perpetuity. If they pick up the ball and run with it (either the override vote or impeachment, for example), they might actually save the GOP, even while the crony squad continues to seem hell-bent on self destruction.