home

Reid-Feingold: 'But We Don't Have the Votes, Bush Will Veto . . '

This is a preemptive post, because I am positive that the defenders of those Presidential candidates who do not endorse Reid-Feingold will trot out the same critiques about the NOT funding the Debacle approach that was used when Feingold first proposed his Not Funding plan in January. To wit, we don't have the votes, McConnell will filibuster, Bush will veto. My response remains

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 political battle too.

This approach is perfectly consistent with the so called "short leash" plan, where the Debacle will be funded in 3 month intervals. But it is only consistent if BOTH are done. The intention to NOT fund the war after March 31, 2008 must be made the Dem position now.

The short leash must be pulled to a stop on March 31, 2008.

Say it now so you can end it then. If you do not say it now, then you can't end it on March 31, 2008.

This approach has the following virtues: (1) you are funding the troops in the field; (2) you are giving the Surge a chance to work; (3) you are laying out a plan the American People support; and most importantly, (4)you can end the Debacle and bring our troops home.

Now if your goal is to RUN on the Debacle (which is unattainable in my opinion, the ruse is too easily seen through) then you won't like this plan.

But if you want to run as the Party that ended the Debacle, or at least the Party that did everything it could to end the Debacle, then you must adopt the NOT funding plan. That means Reid-Feingold.

< Support Reid-Feingold | Correction: Obama Did Do Fox Interview >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Supplemental and Emergency (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:56:02 AM EST
    The war has never been in the budget. For 5 years it has been in Emergency Supplemental Bills. We can just stop passing those. That won't shut down gov't.

    I like it. Another Bush policy done to hide true economic costs comes back to bite him.

    Big Tent Democrat supports the war (1.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Andreas on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    "Big Tent Democrat" wrote:

    This approach has the following virtues: ... (2) you are giving the Surge a chance to work

    In other words: "Big Tent Democrat" is simply a "Democrat" who supports a criminal war.


    Thanks for (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:54:54 PM EST
    keeping it real.

    Parent
    Well maybe (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    if you hadn't written all those diaries in support of the surge. Oh, wait ...

    Parent
    Support of the "surge" (none / 0) (#5)
    by Andreas on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:17:31 PM EST
    A single statement in support of the "surge" is enough. No real opponent of the criminal war supports the "surge".

    Parent
    I too stopped on those words, but knowing BTD's (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by conchita on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:10:40 PM EST
    focus on ending the occupation, I dismissed them as more of a political aside to make it easier for centrist dems to support ending the occupation and defunding than a statement of support for the surge.

    Parent
    You got it (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:25:08 PM EST
    It is about the politics. I found it amusing that anyone would think I favored the surge when I favor cutting off the funding.

    It is hilarious really..

    Parent

    A Reminder (none / 0) (#7)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:13:08 PM EST
    BTD, there really are Americans out there who want us to lose. As far as the listed virtues go, I think that is an uncommonly principled statement of how we get from where we are to where you'd like us to be. Obviously I disagree about your end point, but I cannot argue with the principled manner you've chosen to get there.

    Parent
    Just wondering, Gabe (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peaches on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:32:41 PM EST
    What does it mean that there really are Americans out there that want us to lose and what relavance does it have? Not that I disagree with you, but are you making the same point as Jim that by being against this war you are hoping America loses? or that we are giving comfort to the enemy?

    The way I see it is that victory is irrelevant? We cannot achieve our objective of establishing a democracy through occupation? It has nothing to do with what anybody wants, but rather the conditions in Iraq and the strategy that was pursued to impliment our objectives. In short, it was a failure. So, what does the statement that some Americans want us to lose have to do with anything?

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#10)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:42:57 PM EST
    There's a difference between being against the war and hoping America loses it (though, there's no reason one person couldn't do both at the same time).

    The first group includes folks who think that war is always bad, or that this particular war wasn't justified, or someother thing like that. Some in this group realize that even though they oppose this war, we're stuck in it now so we better win it.

    The second group includes those who'd like to see America get soundly beaten so it'll be less likely to stick its jingoistic, hegemonic, and imperialist nose into the World's business (I'm paraphrasing, of course). They actually want us to lose, so we'll learn a lesson. Of course, there are also Americans who may simply be on the other side (Jose Padilla and JW Lindh come to mind). They also are in this second group.

    Hence my earlier comment: some Americans want us to lose. I was particularly struck by Andreas flat-out refusal to let the surge continue because the whole enterprise is "criminal." That sounds like a losing plan to me.

    As far as the claim that we've already lost, if you think that there's nothing left on the table to achieve then you're simply not paying attention. If, as you say, our objective has failed, the choice is between a total loss and a partial one. There is a right answer to that kind of dilemma.

    Parent

    I never liked Bush (none / 0) (#15)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:22:49 PM EST
    I thought the war was a hare-brained idea. But, if (as seemed nearly impossible to me) the result of the war had turned out remotely like the scenario painted in advance, I would have felt honor-bound to 'give the devil his due' and take a lesson for myself.
    As far as the claim that we've already lost, if you think that there's nothing left on the table to achieve then you're simply not paying attention. If, as you say, our objective has failed, the choice is between a total loss and a partial one. There is a right answer to that kind of dilemma.

    I absolutely do think we've lost. But I also agree that that does not absolve us of responsibility.

    But it seems to me that the Administration's proposals and policies in this matter are unwilling to take a hard look at the realities of the situation and propose anything constructive. So, it seems to me that we're just wasting blood and treasure on both sides deferring a day of Reckoning that will be all the worse for the deferral.

    Parent

    Oh for god's sake ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:06:02 PM EST
    ... provide links and stats.
    BTD, there really are Americans out there who want us to lose.
    Got a stat? A percentage of Americans? Any freakin' source besides your fevered imaginations?

    Sheesh!

    Parent

    I can't provide stats but I know for a fact that (none / 0) (#13)
    by conchita on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:16:04 PM EST
    there are people, Americans and non, who would like the US to lose and bring an end to the imperialist hegemonic policies.  Personally I was vehemently opposed to going into Afghanistan and Iraq and couldn't care less about whether we win or lose.  I just want the US military to end the occupation and leave the Iraq's oil to the Iraqis.

    Parent
    Addendum (none / 0) (#8)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:15:15 PM EST
    And actually, looking closely at your fourth listed virtue, I cannot argue with the sentiment. I, too, would like to see the war ended and our troops brought home. I just don't think that 2008 is necessarily the right year for it.

    Parent
    Andreas (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peaches on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:53:09 PM EST
    is consistent. And his idealism is a metric that everyone may not agree with (I don't always) but is important, if not imperative for progressives to keep in mind.

    I always appreciate the points Andreas brings and his links from the WOrld Socialist Website. But, then again, I used to be a Wobbly (still am at heart, just owe a whole lot of back dues).

    Parent

    Congress is good at doing nothing (none / 0) (#16)
    by JSN on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 09:33:27 PM EST
    so that should not be a problem. The question is will they have the guts to continue to do nothing as the drop dead date approaches.

    If GWB does veto the appropriation bill a possibility will be no new appropriation bill but a continuing resolution instead which would put GWB in a nasty position.

    The key is the Republicans Senators who will have to run for reelection in 2008. One can tilt the balance by finding strong opponents and giving them lots of money.