home

What Now On Iraq?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:08:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Okay, so what now on Iraq funding and ending the war? I think everyone finally gets that the Spending Power, and specifically the NOT Spending power is the only potential check on Bush on Iraq now. There will be no veto proof majorities for deauthorization, timelines, etc. Steve Soto wrote:

Both Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer stated the obvious today: that the Democrats don't have a veto-proof majority in either house. Yeah, so? You knew this back in February, as did most everyone else. It was your job and everyone else in the Democratic leadership to fashion a strategy that made the GOP pay a price for rubber-stamping Bush's surge while still pushing your agenda. And you and your Beltway consultants failed. So stop your whining and get back to the drawing board.

I take Soto's point that everyone knew this but I disagree with the idea of just extracting a political price from Republicans on it. Most importantly, because ending the Iraq Debacle is the most important issue we have. And I do not believe the next President, GOP or Dem, will quickly walk away from it. But secondly, because it is very difficult to extract political advantage without actually trying to change the policy.

When everyone saw the Dems as trying to end the war, there was unity in the Democratic Party. When their flawed strategy came to its inevitable conclusion yesterday, recriminations flew.

Here's my thinking on this now, whether you agree with me or not on the NOT funding option, what else is there to try? IF you want to extract political capital, you have to try, or look like you are trying to end the Debacle, by the only means available. So, for moral, pragmatic and politically craven reasons, I urge the Dem Leadership to try to end the war, by announcing a date certain when the Debacle willnot be funded.

Heck, even if the strategy is overcome by a motion to discharge, as some suggest, at least most Dems will be able to tell their constituents and the country that they did all they could. And the people who will own the war will have their names attached to such motion to discharge. Accountability at least. If not results.

< Wednesday Open Thread | The AG Firings and The Justice Department >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Now On Iraq? | 33 comments (33 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Saving that, because we're dealing w/ Steny (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    Let the supplemental pass with mostly Republican votes.

    Steny (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TexDem on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:43:11 AM EST
    Hrrmmmfff. He's part of the f#@king problem. He needs to be replaced. He's definitely not on the Speaker's or the Dem's side. He clearly has his own agenda. What that agenda is, I'm not totally clear on. But, whatever it is, it is at odds with ending the Iraq debacle.

    [ Parent ]
    If you wish (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:46:09 AM EST
    I am talking about the regular appropriation.

    In esence I say fund it till March 08 and when March 08 draws near then those who want to own the Iraq Debacle fund it.

    I think this needs the announced date certain set up.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:00:14 AM EST
    but leadership seems not to.

    [ Parent ]
    That Dream (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by talex on Wed May 23, 2007 at 04:56:43 PM EST
    will never happen until the public comes around to support it in large numbers as I have been saying over at dkos for months now. They are not there yet.

    Greenwald says today some of what I have been saying and more as to why the Dems can't move on defunding in the link below posted by Meteor Blades.

    Again the people need to come around to it on their own.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/23/1576/35597

    [ Parent ]

    Hahahhahahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:28:22 PM EST
    You are who Greenwald is criticizing:

    What does seem clear is that one of the principal factors accounting for the reluctance of Democrats to advocate de-funding is that the standard corruption that infects our political discourse has rendered the de-funding option truly radioactive. Republicans and the media have propagated -- and Democrats have frequently affirmed -- the proposition that to de-fund a war is to endanger the "troops in the field."

    This unbelievably irrational, even stupid, concept has arisen and has now taken root -- that to cut off funds for the war means that, one day, our troops are going to be in the middle of a vicious fire-fight and suddenly they will run out of bullets -- or run out of gas or armor -- because Nancy Pelosi refused to pay for the things they need to protect themselves, and so they are going to find themselves in the middle of the Iraq war with no supplies and no money to pay for what they need. That is just one of those grossly distorting, idiotic myths the media allows to become immovably lodged in our political discourse and which infects our political analysis and prevents any sort of rational examination of our options.

    That is why virtually all political figures run away as fast and desperately as possible from the idea of de-funding a war -- it's as though they have to strongly repudiate de-funding options because de-funding has become tantamount to "endangering our troops" (notwithstanding the fact that Congress has de-funded wars in the past and it is obviously done in coordination with the military and over a scheduled time frame so as to avoid "endangering the troops").

    It is hilarious that you cite this as SUPPORT. Greenwald is indicting YOU!

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah well (1.00 / 2) (#32)
    by talex on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:09:23 PM EST
    if I was you I would be taking credit for influencing the entire country about defunding for decades now - but I haven't been. But something like that wouldn't stop 'Big Head Democrat with a small tent' from taking credit and even gloating about it.

    A very 'liberal' interpretation of Greenwald though Armando.

    Point is that Glenn is making among a few is that defunding is taboo among the politicos and the public alike even given that it should not be.

    But what should and should not be is not the what matters. It is the CW - the perception that defunding is taboo. That is why I posted Greenwald - because I have understood this for quite sometime where you haven't.

    That is why your single-minded approach is not going to happen - because defunding is a political taboo complete with severe consequences.

    Unless of course the public comes around on it on their own. And they may well come around in due time but it is not certain they will or if they would soon enough. So I wouldn't hold my breath.

    [ Parent ]

    With the way they'll fund Iraq going forward (none / 0) (#8)
    by fairleft on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:03:35 AM EST
    that might be impossible. Apparently the regular Defense bill to be passed in July will include what has up to now been in the Supplementals. This week is the last chance to vote on Iraq funding only. And July is way too early to challenge Bush over the entire Defense bill.

    [ Parent ]
    It won't matter. (none / 0) (#16)
    by fafnir on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    The Dems can make any announcement they want, but it won't have the force of law unless it's placed in a bill that Bush signs, and it ain't gonna happen.

    As I stated in a previous comment, putting language to end the occupation into the mandatory Defense fiscal appropriation bill would likely result in a partial government shutdown. Bush will force a shutdown by vetoing the Defense bill containing the language, as well as any continuing resolutions to sustain operations. And guess who will get the blame.

    The Dems are telling us that using a mandatory appropriations is their next best opportunity. Yet, what they know and aren't saying is that they're walking into a trap with their eyes wide open.

    They don't want to end the occupation and defend their actions under this regime; they simply want to kick the can down the road until after January 2009.

    [ Parent ]

    Force of law? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:55:41 AM EST
    Um, it need only the force of reality, NO FUNDS.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not talking about funds (none / 0) (#21)
    by fafnir on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:10:10 PM EST
    I'm talking about putting language into any one of the 13 mandatory appropriation bills. The bill will be vetoed and, as a result, the funding for the applicable agency (in this case the Defense) will not be authorized. Hence, a shutdown will occur.

    The fundiing has nothing to do with the language to which you refer, but to the host bill to which the specific language will be amended. I've been in government long enough to know the that reality.

    [ Parent ]

    If you'd been paying attention (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    for the last three months, you'd understand that no language need be passed so long as the Democratic Caucus is united.

    [ Parent ]
    Then what's the point (none / 0) (#24)
    by fafnir on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:33:57 PM EST
    when you're dealing with a self-proclaimed "unitary executive" who will not bow to a simple proclaimation? From this point forward, without the force of law all you have is hot air.

    [ Parent ]
    Absurd (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:37:08 PM EST
    No money, no war. Bush will not find $100B elsewhere.

    [ Parent ]
    It's the way the system works (none / 0) (#26)
    by fafnir on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    No money, no [occupation]? Indeed. This why I've argued that the Dems should not send Bush a supplemental. Not sending the supplement achieves the desired outcome: No money, no occupation.

    [ Parent ]
    So this is what we have left to work with (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:35:53 AM EST
    God I'm so depressed today.  I got a very good night's sleep too but it just doesn't help alleviate how crushed my heart feels.  Not only is my heart the size of a fist today, I think it is a fist...a beating pounding fist.

    Who is "everyone" in this quote? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    I think everyone finally gets that the Spending Power, and specifically the NOT Spending power is the only potential check on Bush on Iraq now.

    Lots of folks at DK don't "get it," and, from their statements, lots of Congresspersons and Presidential candidates don't seem to either.  

    Case in point, see DK front page: (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:19:59 PM EST
    don't despair, keep working hard, but no mention of defunding as Congress's sole Constitutional means to end the war.  

    [ Parent ]
    The "Buck up" part (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by yetimonk on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:23:37 PM EST
    really ticked me off.

    [ Parent ]
    An analogy (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:56:54 PM EST
    If Iraq is a nicked femoral artery that's gushing blood, the wingnut position is that we've got all the blood in the world, the netroots position is to put on a tourniquet, and the sensible bipartisan Congressional answer is to wait for the bleeding to stop before we make any rash decisions.

    This ain't good.

    To appropriate, or not to appropriate, (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ben Masel on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:19:08 PM EST
    That is the question.

    Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to pay for
    The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
    Or in refusing to fund arms for a sea of troubles,
    And by opposing end them?

    Just vote 'no' should be the strategy (none / 0) (#2)
    by fairleft on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:38:52 AM EST
    in my humble opinion, and let the Republicans and Blue Dogs manage the Iraq funding bills.

    What is/was the point of dressing opposition to funding up as voting for 'Reid-Feingold'? It simply confuses the inevitable issue: those against funding the war have to vote against funding the war.

    Now we'll have a whole pile of Democratic Senators who will vote for funding and will be able to say, "But hey, look, I voted for Reid-Feingold!" Is that helpful for getting us out of Iraq? Just asking...

    Because you missed the part (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:44:42 AM EST
    about the announcement NOW to the date certain in the future.

    You can't do it on the Supplemental.

    You need to announce it now for the regular appropriations process.


    [ Parent ]

    So that announcement (none / 0) (#6)
    by fairleft on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:59:51 AM EST
    would have to not be "by the leadership" but by/for a majority of either the House or Senate. Right?

    But unfortunately even that would involve Democrats once again in the 'playing chicken with the troops' game Bush is playing, and Democrats have said they would rather give Bush what he wants rather than get into such a game. So, I assume Bush would call Congress's bluff once again, with the usual results.

    This is the big problem, we actually need to play that game, but obviously reframe the 'support the troops' game as, "You, Bush, vetoed funding the troops, we are trying to pass funding with a deadline, but you refuse so your vetoes are responsible for not supporting the troops."


    [ Parent ]

    Did no one ever think (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:40:36 AM EST
     that pushing a position that can't possibly  win now for the purpose of political posturing would likely create very serious problems in 2009 when a Dem is in the WH and has to develop a realistic approach to extricating us from Iraq?

      Imagine the outrage a President would face if in 2009 he or she stated we can't simply set an arbitrary deadline for defunding and withdrawal if that position had been the basis of the Democratic campaign?

      We'd have cut the new President off at the knees before he or she even got started.

     

    Did no one ever think that by funding (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:51:48 AM EST
    a war birthed of Neocon lies and growing daily into a larger bloodbathe would make the Democrats complicit in same war?  Did no one ever think that the things most worth doing in a lifetime are usually HARD WORK?  The Democrats have demonstrated in four short months that they are nearly as unethical and self absorbed as the Republicans are these days!

    [ Parent ]
    We are complicit in the War to a degree (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:04:51 AM EST
      We can't change historical reality. We are less complicit but in many ways but we are not without responsibility. the idea that making it a solely "Republican War" will succeed in ending the war sooner is completely unrealistic. If anything it will make it more difficult to end the War when that strategy becomes untenable because we are in charge.

     The point is that if we want to be responsible for ending the war we need to win an election and then do the HARD WORK of implementing  a  realistic strategy. Posturing now for defunding and arbitrary deadlines is not HARD WORK; it's not going to end the war one day sooner, with one less life lost.

      We will be in Iraq in January of 2009 whther we like it or not and we will need a President who has the political capital domestically and internationally to work our way out of it-- day by day, month by month based on real world circumstances as they exist -- not arbitrary deadlines set for no purpose other than posturing.

     

    [ Parent ]

    So you believe that there are substitutes (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:17:40 AM EST
    for doing the right thing...the ethical and humanitarian thing?

    [ Parent ]
    what i think (none / 0) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:23:21 AM EST
     is that it is foolish to equate posturing for defunding and arbitrary dealdines with the "ethical and humanitarian thing."

      If I for a second was gullible and out of touch enough to think this idea would have any positive effect i would support it. I'm not so I don't. i simply recognize it for what it is a silly idea pushed by silly people, some of whom may be well-intentioned but by others who  are not and push it for more devious and self-aggrandizing motives.

     

    [ Parent ]

    How cowardly we have become (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    when compared to the men and women who founded this nation.

    [ Parent ]
    It's all a game (none / 0) (#13)
    by wlgriffi on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:04:57 AM EST
    It's amazing that anyone is befuddled with the "bussiness as usual" antic's of the U.S.Congress.

    [ Parent ]
    People get the government they deserve. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:18:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Great Sound Bite (none / 0) (#33)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    But secondly, because it is very difficult to extract political advantage without actually trying to change the policy.

    I'm going to remember this line and use it. I think it encapsulates everything that I find missing from our leadership.

    What Now On Iraq? | 33 comments (33 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment