Why This Congress Must End The Iraq Debacle

My obsession with urging this Congress to adopt what I believe to be the only viable approach to ending the Iraq Debacle while Bush is President, adopting the goals of Reid-Feingold as the policy of the Democratic Congress. My formulation is this:

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.

I believe the need for THIS Congress ending the Debacle is especially acute because the next President will be very reluctant to be saddled with having "lost" the war. Today, on the McLaughlin Group, Tony Blankley articulated my fear, that a Democratic President will not end the Debacle, instead slipping into some "sensible, sober" Broderist mindset. I believe Blankley is right. And of course, a Republican might win the election in 2008. It is thus incumbent on this Congress, this Democratic Congress, to end the Iraq Debacle.

< Crooked Talk on McCain From WaPo | German Prosecutor Dismisses Torture Case Against Rumsfeld >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Harry Reid could do this himself (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    By saying the following:
    I promise the President that no bill will reach the floor of the U.S. Senate that funds operations in Iraq beyond March 31, 2008.
    Perhaps it would be more effective for us to lobby that one person.

    Agree very much with you (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by janinsanfran on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:44:49 PM EST
    Having lost the war, we'll now engage in the blame game. Democrats are cowards about this. Even if the current Congress does create the mechanism to end the war, Dems risk losing the peace.

    Here is a pretty good article by smart friends about this.

    At this point (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    you've won me over to your position about Reid-Feingold. I can't find any fault with it. Whereas the hand-wringing 'but we don't have to votes to legislate against the war' is destined only to keep the war going. More will die to no purpose whatsoever.

    Unfortunately, I fear that too many Dem pols think that feigning impotence against the Bush veto somehow serves their political interests for 2008. Can someone convince me that I am wrong, i.e. that they don't really think this?

    To the contrary (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:46:12 PM EST
    The evidence is strong that Dems want Iraq as an election issue in 2008. Which means not ending the Debacle.

    As I feared n/t (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:48:05 PM EST
    Bad mistake, I think. n/t (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:06:01 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:10:01 PM EST
    It is.

    I don't know (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    Wouldn't they have to NOT be feeling impotent to feign impotence? I think too many really do feel impotent. Maybe they just aren't paying attention, or are forgetting why they were elected last November?

    Ignoring the (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:08:59 PM EST
    Reid-Feingold approach and pretending that it all comes down to passing a bill to end the war is what I mean by feigning impotence. They can't overcome the veto, but they don't have to.

    Ok, I understand you now. (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    Moqtada al-Sadr Speaks (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    "Bush ignores all the calls asking for withdrawal or for the setting of a timetable for withdrawal, despite the demonstrations that the Iraqi people staged in Najaf and in every spot around the globe."

    Muqtada addressed Bush, claiming that the UN had asked for a US withdrawal (not true). He denied that a US withdrawal would throw Iraq into greater chaos:
    "What chaos can be greater from what we face in Iraq, in which blood runs every moment, without let-up . . ?" He asked if Bush had just traded Saddam's dictatorship for one of Shiite-hating Sunnis (nawasib) and excommunicators (takfiris). He asked what had become of Bush's debaathification, since he was now asking that Baathists be reinstated in the government. He taunted Bush for having announced an intention to disarm Iraq, complaining that Bush had filled "our beloved Iraq" with weapons. He asked, "How have you fought sectarianism, when you are reinforcing it by building walls and instituting partitions on a sectarian, political basis-- not on a national, Iraqi, Arab or Islamic basis.

    Referring to the Democratic Party's dissent from Bush's policies in Iraq, Muqtada asked, "Do you want us to follow your mistakes and your plan, when you have yourselves turned against it? . . . What kind of democracy is this that you desire? Thousands go out to vote, then you go back to national reconciliation with Baathists and terrorists?

    Addressing Bush, he said, "While you once predicted that your picture would hang in Iraqis' homes, now it is under their feet . . . You have destroyed the reputation of the West among Easterners generally." He accused Bush of having US troops put their feet on the necks of Iraqis, and desecrating the Qur'an.

    He accused Bush of turning Iraq into an arena of contention. He said, "Bush, you wanted to make America more secure, but you have set it ablaze . . ."

    Juan Cole

    Something to remember (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:43:15 PM EST
    Obsessing about something doesn't make it be that way, and at least to a degree people know that. It would be better to step back, and also to engage in Plan B planning. I want to see some postings about what to do if Reid-Feingold doesnâ€<sup>TM</sup>t prevail, even though it ought to. If I only followed this blog, it would seem that world collapses. (Which it is doing, on account of the far more important and desperate problem of carbon dioxide emissions.)

    #!!!#*$?!!!!!! software kerplunkt!!!! (none / 0) (#19)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:45:38 PM EST
    Sorry about the way this site mangles Unicode punctuation.

    Just want you to know that when you take (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:36:57 PM EST
    that step back, you abandon my family and my husband and every other soldier and their families as well.  Nice to know we are appreciated for the job we were stupid enough to sign up to do :(  How do you square all this with allowing that egomaniac to send your National Guard into this as well?

    Good luck with that (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Lora on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 05:06:52 PM EST
    LOTS of people are benefiting from the
    $421,425,180,607 (and rising every fraction of a second, from the National Priorities Project) that the war in Iraq costs.

    Just googling around, here's one from Mother Jones a year ago:

    George W. Bush's Uncle Bucky (William H.T. Bush), brother of George H.W. Bush, has collected about $1.9 million in cash, plus $800,000 in stocks, from the recent sale of Engineered Support Systems, Inc. ESSI, of which Bush was a director, was sold to DRS Technologies for $1.7 billion at the end of January, after the company experienced record growth from expanded military contracts, most related to activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    This war is a cash cow for some.  It's not going to be easy to kill the cow.

    Clear Motivations (1.00 / 3) (#3)
    by jarober on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:08:55 PM EST
    At least your motivations are clear; you want to saddle the other party with the blame in order to gain seats.  

    Never mind the whole "reaping the whirlwind" thing.

    Fell thru the mirror again, James? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:56:08 PM EST
    It is rethugs and rethug trolls like you who are unable to accept responsibility and do their best (unsuccessfully) to shirk and transfer the blame.

    Mirrors are awful things, aren't they?

    Unfortunately for you, that same incompetency defense you guys try to use is what makes all your efforts fruitless.

    Stop it (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:20:24 PM EST

    I am deleting this comment for your false personal attack.

    Have 0 ratings (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:32:00 PM EST
    been permanently disabled? I'm told that I'm still a trusted user.

    Yes (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    No more zeroes.

    Ending the deaths & destruction . . . (none / 0) (#16)
    by walt on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    . . . should be the primary focus; 2ndary would be the wasted $billions.

    The concept of "saddling" the GOoPerz with Iraq is of no consequence: everybody on the planet knows who the progenitors of this war have been; that will hardly be shifted to the Democratic Party or its candidates.

    The actual focus should be to end it quickly.  It is conceivable that Bu$hKorp will lay a series of "traps" for the next administration.  These sinkholes within the quagmire may be such fabulously negative deals as 1. the production service agreements for BigOil to take over pumping & peddling Iraqi crude, 2. a treaty of some sort with whatever happens to be the Iraqi administration in late 2008, 3. some form of mutual defense & cooperation agreement(s)  with the feudal baronetcies (caliphates) in the region, 4. some bogus contracts with the war profiteers now working for the USA, 5. the potential to widen the Great War on Terra & 6. the total alienation of all possible allies.

    It should be noted that, in any event, Bu$h xliii will probably have to come back again for another Iraq Supplemental before his regime is out of the White House.

    I agree - the worst is to come (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 08:41:53 PM EST
    08 April 2007: The Surge: Sadr Calls For Attacks On US Troops
    Muqtada al-Sadr urged the Iraqi army and police to stop cooperating with the United States and ... concentrate on pushing American forces out of the country

    Last summer, July 2006: al-Sadr's office issued a 10 point policy directive to all the offices and branches of the Badr Organization.

    Up to now al-Sadr has been showing some restraint from open battle with US Troops.

    Point 1 of that letter was:

    1 - There is a need to exercise restraint and patience and calm in the face of the full military and political escalation of the Anglo-American occupation forces and not respond to them, so that the enemies will not be able to transfer of the battle to their areas, drain our energies
    Now he has "told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate on pushing American forces out of the country"?

    Point 10 of the directive last summer was:
    10- In the case of starting the battle, all Shiites, followers of Imam Ali (peace be upon him), as well as employees of the Ministry of Defense and Interior Ministry to join "Badr Brigade" forces, the Mahdi Army and the Al-Dawa Party, stealing arms and ammunition, machinery and equipment to increase the battle.
    To me it looks like the sh*t is about to hit the fan, bigtime. I suspect we "ain't seen nuthin', yet."

    It's already happening (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    US Troops April Death Toll in Iraq Passes 100
    Five US troops were killed in separate attacks in the capital this weekend, including three in a single roadside bombing, the military said on Monday, pushing the death toll past 100 in the deadliest month of the year so far.

    What Have I Missed that we are not talking IMPEACH (none / 0) (#23)
    by womanwarrior on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:24:24 PM EST
    Have I missed threads that dealth with Impeachment?  Does anyone know that there were demonstrations across the United States yesterday, April 28 to impeach Cheney and Bush?  Why is it off Pelosi's table?  It isn't in the MSM and I only saw it on Huffington.  
    Do we believe that impeachment hearings will prove without doubt that Bush and Cheney authorized war crimes:  unprovoked war of agression based on lies, torture at Abu Ghraib and many other places, not to mention the separate issue of destruction of our Constitution?  
    Would this be faster or slower than posturing over "funding" and who supports the troops?  How is it supporting the troops to send them to continue to die for no good reason?  Isn't that the real reason that Congress must act, and act now?  
    I know I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.