Congress To Offer Bush Blank Check?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:09:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

John Aravosis reports:

I just heard from an impeccable source that there is serious concern on the Hill that conservative Democrats in the House will vote with the Republicans to strip any and all restrictions from the Iraq supplemental tomorrow, effectively giving Bush all the money he wants with no restrictions and no effort to hold either him or the Iraq government accountable for anything.

If this is true, I hope that there will be a revolt in the Democratic Party. The crappy House Supplemental had 218 votes. A number of Blue Dogs voted against it, including Marshall, Barrow and others. Who else is going to break?

Do you think maybe Rove knew this when he allowed the "moderate" Republicans top leak their meeting with Bush? To cover for yet another rubberstamping of Mr. 28%?

I personally think this will be a good development for ending the war. Why? Because finally Democrats across the country will realize they have been played by their own leaders. Maybe now Move On, et al., will realize there is one way to end this war - by announcing a date certain, as the Democratic position, when the war will not be funded. The Reid-Feingold framework. And they will work like hell to pressure the Dems to adopt it.

In any event, let's hope the Dems who vote with Bush will have hell to pay for doing it. Maybe then, some discipline can be restored to the Democratic Caucus where it needs to be applied, the Blue Dogs, NOT the Out of Iraq Caucus.

< Just Crazy Enough To Work? | Meanwhile In Iraq . . >

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.

Congress To Offer Bush Blank Check? | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Democratic leaders need to table this vote (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Freewill on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:03:15 AM EST

They control Congress's agenda. No vote what-so-ever on anything Iraq this week or the next. Let this Iraqi Parliament Vacation issue play out a lot more in the public's eye! Make the Blue Dogs think a little more about their actions and keep the heat on this Administration and its Party.

I hope you're right. (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by Pneumatikon on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:19:02 PM EST

I personally think this will be a good development for ending the war. Why? Because finally Democrats across the country will realze they have been played by their own leaders. Maybe now Move On, et al., will realize there is one way to end this war - by announcing a date, as the Democratic position, when the war will not be funded. The Reid-Feingold framework. And they will work like hell to pressure the Dems to adopt it.

Having Bush steal another election has really stirred the pot. Lenin would love this guy. Dems breaking with the explicit will of the American people to give this guy what he wants? It will get quite interesting.

Not sure how I feel about this (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:16:54 PM EST

I think we were about to get some traction on Reid-Feingold. Can you think of 15 Democrats who would want to vote for this amendment and own the war?

No (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:18:49 PM EST

This would be pretty shocking.

[ Parent ]

: I would hope that those who would consider it (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:26:59 PM EST

would instead vote present.

[ Parent ]

Progressive Democrats (none / 0) (#6)
by conchita on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:41:10 AM EST

have emailed me about two important house votes tomorrow - Obey's supplemental and McGovern's HR 2237 - but not this one. Is this true? If so, why isn't anyone but PDA talking about McGovern's HR 2237? PDA is opposing Obey's and pushing McGovern's resolution. HR 2237 includes funding for redeployment of all U.S. troops but those engaged in limited operations against al-Qaeda and foreign terrorists, and for training Iraqi troops beginning within 90 days of enactment and completed within 180 days. It also puts a cap on funding for U.S. military personnel at January 2007 levels. Of course, it won't pass and if by some slim chance it did, Bush would veto it, but why is this the first I am hearing of it the night before the vote?

Since we ixnay potty mouth (none / 0) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:22:00 AM EST

on Talkleft I have nothing to say about this and nobody to pointedly say it to.

Mensheviks (none / 0) (#8)
by Che's Lounge on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:44:06 AM EST

It's a setup, he'll never know what hit him. (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:18:28 AM EST

They're going to spring a veto proof majority on him.

In 2009.

I don't follow the logic of how (none / 0) (#10)
by Geekesque on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:06:31 AM EST

we get to cutting off funding if we can't even get 218 votes to attach strings to funding.

It's complicated. (none / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:12:48 AM EST

It takes NO votes to NOT fund.

Not even 1, much less 218.

[ Parent ]

Which assumes that there's no (none / 0) (#16)
by Geekesque on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:13:43 AM EST

way that 218 members on the floor or 34 members in the Appropriations Committee can push through Iraq funding.

Not to mention what could happen in the Senate.

[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:15:38 AM EST

That can't be done with Pelosi ok'ing it, so far as I know.

[ Parent ]

: Or Reid in the Senate. (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:28:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]

It would need to pass both houses (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:37:59 AM EST

and be signed by the President for funding to occur.

[ Parent ]

: Yes. I think we disagree (none / 0) (#20)
by Geekesque on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:54:20 AM EST

about the ability of Reid and Pelosi to block funding votes.
As juicy and thrilling as debates over parliamentary procedure are, I think I'll just have to leave our disagreement at that.
By the way, did you see what Carl Levin said today? Worst statement by a Democrat ever.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:20:25 AM EST

Sorry that you do not get it.

I will not explain it again.

I can not make it any clearer.

[ Parent ]

Hope springs eternal (none / 0) (#13)
by Lora on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:28:00 AM EST

Good luck with that, BTD. I hope you're right. However, I do not believe that the elected Democrats will buck those who helped get them in power and may help keep them there if they play their cards right. And that isn't the electorate I'm talking about.

What is the big hurdle? (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:43:42 AM EST

[N]early 80 percent of all funding for these wars was the result of emergency and supplemental spending, not regular budgetary means.
--War And Occupation Funding: More Cooking The Books By Bush And Pentagon?

Those on the right accuse Congress of trying to cut off money for the troops by ending the war. Those on the left accuse Bush of threatening to cut off money for the troops by vetoing a war funding bill.
--Defunding The Iraq War Is Supporting The Troops

Why is it that people have a hard time understanding NOT sending an emergency supplemental funding bill to an appropriations committee?

It takes only the Speaker not referring a funding bill introduced by any rep to committee.

Thomas: V. Introduction and Referral to Committee

: Now. (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:46:57 AM EST

There is a mistake in my comment above. One that makes it even easier to not fund than it appears. The answer to that mistake is in one of those links.

[ Parent ]