home

Reid Backs Feingold "Not Funding" Iraq Debacle Plan

This is a major development, imo:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ

Washington D.C. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. . . . The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”

“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”

Announcing the end of funding by a date certain, as I have written to the point of making everyone scream, is essential to a Congressional strategy for ending the war. Instead of announcing an expectation of Congressional capitulation, as one Senator and Presidential candidate has done, is hardly a stratey for policy success on Iraq or for political success. I am extremely gratified that Senate Majority Leader Reid understands this and instead has announced a robust plan for response to a Presidential veto.

Here's a question, do you think one Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) will support the Reid-Feingold bill? I predict he will and at the same time I predict Obama will prognosticate Senate capitulation if Bush vetoes the bill.

< March, Um, April Madness - Let's Go Gators! | SCOTUS Refuses Immediate Review Of Gitmo Habeas Claims >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    GAME ON! (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by wayleftofcenter on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 08:43:40 AM EST
    Oh now this will be fun. Prezilnitwit will throw one huge hissy fit. Glad to see Reid woke UP.
    Gonna be interesting. Love it when the Dems discover their spine.

    Bluffing? How many votes will he get? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:15:56 AM EST
    Only works if you have the House Dems in tow.  Are they there yet?

    I don't like the idea of them (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by roboleftalk on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    bringing a bill that will be subject to compromise in the senate.  Better to just say we have no plans to bring any bill if the GW vetoes.

    Parent
    Well, if you are going to bluff, you don't... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:24:16 AM EST
    want someone behind you telegraphing what cards you are holding.  Miller, Obama.  Sheesh.

    Parent
    Look at how Reid puts it (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:46:31 AM EST

    I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate.

    I know the response is just gonna be "i never said bipartisanship wouldn't have a role to play," but hey.  i think it was summarily called worthless a few times.

    the point is the supplemental bill, a bill i believe you said the out of iraq dems should reject, is now being strategically used to ratchet up pressure on the president and senate republicans.

    this is indeed a major development, a development that would have none of the significance it has right now without what precedes it.

    at what point do we start considering dems had a plan on this even if it wasn't, at first blush, the plan you advocated for.


    You keep jabbing at BTD, Stewieeeee (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:06:26 AM EST
    for wanting defunding and a date certain.

    At what point do you start considering that maybe dems wouldn't have a plan on this if it there weren't people like Feingold, Kucinich, Big Tent Democrat, and others, pressing (overton-ing?)for defunding and a date certain?

    Sometimes you just have to put your shoulder against the mountain and push.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:40:22 AM EST
    it's a defect to allow oneself to be baited by the arrogant.

    and if this is a legitimate question, then "no."  I don't think the inclination to always assume the worst helps lead democrats along towards a more aggressive strategy.  me beating reid with an internet stick doesn't help him to see the light.  it certainly isn't going to help him get nelson or landrieu to support a supplemental bill.

    kucinich and feingold calling dems timid unless they adopt defunding is a distraction and actually inpedes progress.

    that's a perfectly valid opinion for me to have.

    Parent

    It was an honest, legitimate question (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:45:43 AM EST
    and there was no arrogance in it.

    kucinich and feingold calling dems timid unless they adopt defunding is a distraction and actually inpedes progress.

    Impedes? Reid is co-sponsoring Feingold's position.

    Not the other way 'round....

    Parent

    i know (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:56:57 AM EST
    your question had no arrogance in it.

    that wasn't the arrogance i was referring to.

    there was a process by which they've arrived feingold's position.

    Parent

    Took 'em long enough :-/ (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:08:52 AM EST
    Ya think they might be (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TexDem on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    growing a set?

    Parent
    I hope so. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:50:09 AM EST
    They're not kids anymore. They must be past puberty by now? Time they started using what they've got.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#27)
    by TexDem on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 05:56:20 PM EST
    The House bill (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:17:03 AM EST
    is darn worthless.

    Parent
    There's a little devil on my shoulder (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    whispering in my ear that this could be seen as a threat by Bush. Enough to make him "not" veto the supplemental? Just take the money and start writing signing statements re the target dates?

    How would that play out, do you think?

    Parent
    I used to think that little (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:58:51 AM EST
    rat was never crazy enough to do anything like that but he has broken all my forecasting gauges.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:07:44 AM EST
    Has he ever lived up to anything he's agreed to?

    Don't forget he's only ever vetoed one bill.

    Parent
    Depends on what comes out of conference. (none / 0) (#16)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    If it's goals, I think Bush would think hard about a veto.  If it's binding, he'd look weak if he backed down.  How weak can he allow himself to look before Repubs bail on him.  He scored points with the Gonzales posturing IMHO.

    Parent
    Yeah. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:41:28 AM EST
    But they're bailing on him anyway. Does he care how weak he looks? He's not running next year. The rethugs that are bailing on him will be.

    Parent
    True, but Bush represents much more... (none / 0) (#23)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:56:52 AM EST
    than just himself.  He has to govern for another couple years.

    Parent
    Well...... sort of. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:59:15 AM EST
    He just has to stand there with that stupid look on his face while the people behind him govern.

    Parent
    LOL. n/t (none / 0) (#25)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:25:39 PM EST
    Ahem. Scooped in comments (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    Bested BTD and Dkos, you did. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:29:58 AM EST
    Hmmmm.... (4.66 / 3) (#4)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:57:53 AM EST
    maybe incrementalism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

    What has changed? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:26:38 AM EST
    There isn't even a bill out of conference.  Or did I miss something.  

    Parent
    Reid's (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    willingness to discuss taking concrete and effective steps to end the war by a date certain.  

    Parent