Iraq Post-Veto Strategy For Dems: Reid-Feingold

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:06:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

John Podesta discusses potential Democratic strategies for reacting to a Bush veto of the Iraq supplemental funding bill scheduled to be sent the President next week:

Four Post-Veto Scenarios:
Provide a short infusion of funding of $40 billion

Demand the president to account for the military readiness of units being sent to Iraq and acknowledge the strains on troops already in Iraq in the fiscal year 2007 supplemental bill

Demand that certification of progress towards benchmarks for Iraq’s political transition remains a part of the FY2007 supplemental funding bill
Keep the pressure for redeployment dates by offering redeployment language in the markups of the fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization and Appropriations bills.

What's missing? Reid-Feingold. Why would John Podesta not consider Reid-Feingold? Why would he ignore the stated policy of the Democratic Senate Majority Leader? Here's why -- because John Podesta and his group do not believe, apparently, that Congress can NOT fund the Debacle:

In addition to its strong oversight role, Congress has four main tools to increase pressure on President Bush and his allies: fence the funding to shorter intervals; set standards for military readiness; hold the Iraqi government and the Bush administration accountable for progress on benchmarks in Iraq’s political transition; and set timetables for redeployment. Congress can use these tools in combination, sequentially, or both.

What's missing is not funding after a date certain. What's missing is using the NOT Spending Power. Despite the clear preference of the American People for Congress ending the war by March 31, 2008, John Podesta and his group simply do not have the courage to recommend implementing the will of the American People. This is terribly disappointing and simply wrong.

Proposals like Podesta's are non-starters in my opinion. No announced date certain for not funding the Debacle, as Reid-Feingold provides, is a policy to NOT end the Iraq Debacle. Again, the Beltway simply is disconnected from the American People.

< Friday Funnies: Will Farrell Arguing with his Two Year Old Landlord | Studies: Baby Boomers Less Healthy Than Their Parents >

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 Post-Veto Strategy For Dems: Reid-Feingold | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Totally disconnected (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Maryb2004 on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:52:31 PM EST

The most useless part of that whole analysis was the portion discussing the "context". Unbelievable that in their view the context doesn't include any mention of the trending will of the public.

: Good point (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:54:59 PM EST

Odd since (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 12:18:00 AM EST

they link to polling that shows 61% of Americans want a time limit on funding for the Iraq war (in addition to the 6% who'd block all funding without conditions).

This strategy they're offering is pretty clearly designed to wring out the maximum amount of pre-election bad optics for Republicans, through benchmarks Bush won't be able to meet, while trying to make Dems look "tough". Not at all meant to end the war, but to drag it out as painfully as possible for its electoral value to Democrats.

The problem is we have no way of registering actual negation of either of these parties in the voting booth. Voting third party is just seen to be strategic for one or the other, and not showing up to vote at all is called voter apathy.

I agree with setting a date (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:27:20 PM EST

but I'm not sure you're being quite fair. Also, you could argue that we already set a date (oct 2008), it's just not the one you want.

This is a POST-VETO strategy (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:29:22 PM EST

You're misunderstanding.

A date certain for NOT funding is not considered.

I have been perfectly fair.

This is part of the cavein setup that is coming.


You might be right (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:31:54 PM EST

here's a question: how intent is Reid on offering this bill?

If he brings it up for a vote, the date will be enshrined IMHO. I'm hoping that the Democrats who support caving in have been shut up by the most recent poll numbers, but I'm not convinced.


He said he would (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:48:31 PM EST

I can't imagine he won't after that.


Well, he's proved to be a better leader (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 12:02:55 AM EST

than Pelosi. I hope you're right.


He has (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 12:11:22 AM EST

after a bad stumbleearly on the nonbinding Surge nonsense.


: We might yet get mileage out of that (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 12:17:35 AM EST

with John Sununu. But as to your key issue, "ending the Iraq debacle," it probably did nothing.

Why don't they get serious about NOT funding? (none / 0) (#11)
by Lora on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:56:20 PM EST

I think you have to look at who and what will be NOT funded. It isn't just "THE WAR." It's very specific, very big business, no?