Pressure To End The Iraq Debacle

The Out of Iraq caucus is beginning to get some movement out of the timid Dem leadership in the House, succesfully pushing back the retrograde Blue Dogs:

Under the deal, to be formally drafted by the Appropriations Committee next week, Congress would institute the same tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government that Bush detailed in a national address in January. Under those benchmarks, the Iraqi government would have to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November, and adopt and implement oil-revenue-sharing legislation. . . . Bush would have to certify the benchmarks are met by year's end. If not, troops would begin leaving Iraq next spring, with all troops out of combat by the fall, a senior Democratic aide said.

Now this is a terrible proposal because it allows Bush to get off the hook by "certifying" benchmarks are met. Simply unacceptable. But certainly better than just a few days ago. The pressure must continue to build from the Out of Iraq Caucus, the grassroots AND the Netroots. We need to disabuse the Blue Dog notion expressed here:

"The war is the issue, but it's the president's issue, not ours," [Rep.] Boren said.

That is truly a despicable thing to say. Americans dying for no good reason is YOUR issue Congressman. It is the Congress' issue. It is the country's issue. If you care about that then vote for this:

Democratic leaders hope to quell the revolt by granting liberals a vote on an amendment to end the war immediately.

Let's find out who REALLY cares about the troops.

< Broder's Bipartisanship: Ignore Issues Where There is Disagreement | Libby: Bob Novak Criticizes Fitgerald's Closing >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting thing about that oil-revenue-sharing (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by annefrank on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:01:00 AM EST
    legislation. While most discussion is about ensuring all sects have a piece of the pie - rarely is anything mentioned in our media about the production sharing agreements that foreign oil companies have insisted upon - replacing Iraqi's nationalized oil. Now the Iraqis will retain less money for oil drilling contracts -and U.S. oil companies will smile at Bush's democracy hypocrisy!

    Interesting? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by TexDem on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:41:07 AM EST
    It's always been about the oil. That's why Bushco needed some sort of "legitimate" government to get through their new laws allowing foreign companies to take the bulk of the revenues out of the country. It's just a cover for his "base" to make more money. And our Marines and soldiers are paying the price.

    The War belongs to... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by vcmvo2 on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 05:34:53 AM EST
    "The war is the issue, but it's the president's issue, not ours," [Rep.] Boren said.
    The War belongs to Democrats too. It is up to us to end it because this President won't. Maybe they don't get the fact that he's perfectly fine with it the way it is!

    Exactly! (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by annefrank on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:00:26 AM EST
    Bush has always been fine with cutting VA benefits -shown in his current proposed budget submitted prior to the Walter Reed 'scandal.'

    I think Boren (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by mentaldebris on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:56:10 AM EST
    and the Dems are going to find out just how much it's their issue when the '08 elections start looming.

    You've already got people noticing that an unacceptable percentage of the people they elected to do something seem to be rather content to do nothing. If that attitude persists in DC, they might as well forget about those gains they are counting on in '08.

    Barring unforeseen circumstances, they'll lose a good percentage of the base and the independents if the strategy is basically do nothing and hope to to hang the war on Bush until '08. They need to push a resolution to bring this war to an end every week. If they do that one of two things will happen:

    1. The repubs will eventually cave knowing that continued obstruction is going to permanently kill their party.

    2. Repub obstruction will permanently kill their party.

    If the end result is number 2 at least the Dems can point to the effort and say they tried to do what they were elected to do. Boren is a moron.

    Yeah, if this isn't dealt with now, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Noor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:31:59 PM EST
    that's a dead rotting chicken that's going to be wired around the Dems' necks.  And that could really foul up the 2008 election cycle (no pun intended).

    owning it (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by klevenstein on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:01:53 AM EST
    It could belong to us, as well!

    I'm travelling and in meetings today, but the netroots should  get on this...

    Go, netroots!

    Here's a "known unknown": (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:55:30 AM EST
    How many Republicans are completely unwilling to vote for any budget that could conceivably be offered by Pelosi? Put differently, is it within the power of the Progressive Caucus to derail the budget process?  

    Haven't Repubs been 'instructed' (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by annefrank on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:03:56 AM EST
    to obstruct Dems' proposals?  I think that was revealed at the recent CPAC.

    What was Boren intending to say? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:44:30 AM EST
    The Post article makes clear that some of the Blue Dogs oppose micromanaging of the Iraq War by Congress.  Is this what Boren was getting at?  Did he intend to say that it was Bush's issue to solve?  But even that would be wrong IMHO.

    Do The Right Thing (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by john horse on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 05:32:17 PM EST
    I agree with Big Tent Democrat.  The proposal of the Out of Iraq caucus, though an improvement, is unacceptable.

    Maybe we should start thinking in terms of morality instead of politics.

    If you believe that this war is not justifiable and/or not winnable then the moral thing to do is to end the war immediately.  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?"  The Democrats should be thinking of ending the war now instead of playing games, letting Bush have his do-over, even though most of them probably believe he will fail.

    We would be able to tell... (4.66 / 3) (#2)
    by joliberal on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:22:59 AM EST
    who really cares about the troops. However, from reading the article it almost seems like this new proposal is an attempt to get the caucus to give up on the idea of defunding. They will allow a vote on immediate withdawl, but when it doesn't pass (and I think they know it won't), the liberals will then have to support their continued funding of the war.

    All Dems care about the troops. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:05:23 AM EST
    They just disagree on the extent of management to achieve an end to the War.  But I agree with you that the vote on withdrawal is to give the liberals a chance to voice their demand for withdrawal, which is then to be followed by what Dems can agree on.

    Bipartisanship in a 51-49 Senate (none / 0) (#10)
    by Chupachivo on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:04:59 AM EST

     I think Mr. Broder and others who are whining that there isn't a bipartisan spirit in Congress, should look back at the Senate in 1950-1954 during the age of McCarthyism.  The Senate was pretty evenly divided throughout those years.  The problem is not the lack of bipartisanship, but the fear of dressing down a Senator will make him or her bolt their caucus or be unreliable during a major vote.  Senator Joe McCarthy was one of those unpredictable that the caucus couldn't control, and also feared because he pretty much went out and defeated a couple senators who challenged him, including the Democratic Majority Leader in 1950, Senator Scott Lucas of Ilinois. Today's political scene is a bit of the same because there is fear to reach out across the aisle for political solutions.  

       We also have many Senators elected who get their support from Manchean like organizations like the NRA, AIPAC, AARP, NAB etc, who punished severly any deviation from their policy agenda.  (Is there any Senator that is publicly advocating the elimination of the Home Mortgage Deduction on Income Taxes?)

      Why would a Senator want to reach out for a bi partisan solution when there is a good chance that a wing of his party will use that against the Senator in a primary, or most importantly on the fund raising circuit?  It seems that Caucus unity is stress more importantly these days than bipartisanship.  Look at the votes for the non binding resolution for Iraq.

     The Senate is a reflection of the times, and the interests that helped Senators into office.  If Broder wants to understand why there is no bipartisanship, he needs to dig deeper for an answer.  
    We may no longer have the Jesse Helms and the Rick Santorums walking around the Senate's halls itching for a partisan fight, but as long as the fear of punishment for making compromises for solutions outweighs being rewarded for making partisan remarks that gets checks into their campaign war chest, bipartisanship will run in second place.

    my read is that pelosi is moving the mounain (none / 0) (#15)
    by mikeyshriver on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 04:04:25 AM EST
    i maintain my trust.  today's news gives me reason to thinki am not being duped or being stupid in my trust.

    tomorrow will be instructive.