The Reid-Feingold Framework Is The Only Way To End The War

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:44:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Who wrote this column, cuz it makes good sense:

The gap between public opinion and Washington reality has rarely been wider than on the issue of the Iraq war. A clear national mandate is being blocked -- for now -- by constraints that make sense only in the short-term calculus of politics in this capital city. The public verdict on the war is plain. Large majorities have come to believe that it was a mistake to go in, and equally large majorities want to begin the process of getting out. That is what the polls say; it is what the mail to Capitol Hill says; and it is what voters signaled when they put the Democrats back into control of Congress in November. . . . Congress shares war-making power under the Constitution but can exercise it only through its control of the money the president needs to finance any military operation.

But then it makes the Friedman Unit mistake:

Come September, when Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says that he will be able to judge whether the new tactics and the nearly 30,000 additional troops have turned the tide in the effort to reduce the carnage in Baghdad, different political forces will prevail. If he is successful and if the Iraqis begin to make the political accommodations needed to form a stable government, the president will be in a far better position to rally domestic support for the cause. If not, you can expect to see many congressional Republicans joining the Democrats in a demand for a "Plan B" that would probably lead to an early exit by a substantial portion of American troops.

The "many Republicans" mentioned in this column do not exist and never have existed. But what I find interesting is the notion that if Bush's Surge strategy is successful that means US troops have to stay in Iraq for a longer haul. If they are unsuccessful, then they will leave early. This seems nonsensical to me, but entirely Beltway.

The truth is, in a sane world, success would lead to the Iraqis "standing up" and the US "standing down" and failure would lead to the realization that there is no military solution to the problems of Iraq now. In EITHER case, ending the Debacle on the date certain of April 1, 2008 would be the logical position of all. Those who believe in the Surge and those who do not.

This is why I support the Reid-Feingold framework that calls for NOT funding the Iraq Debacle after April 1, 2008. This plan is PRAGMATIC because (1) it takes into account the fact that the President will veto legislation that ends the war, (2) but that he can not force the Congress to fund the Debacle, (3) that "abandoning the troop sion the field is not a politically viable option, (4) but announcing a date certain for ending the war that gives the American People and the President of the United States 11 months warning for getting the troops out of the field, is politically viable, even politically advantageous.

This is the ONLY way to end the war during the Bush Presidency. All the rest is, as John Edwards says, noise.

< Why Does Anyone Pay Attention To Doris Kearns Goodwin? | Tancredo: Immigration Threatens Western Civilization >

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.

The Reid-Feingold Framework Is The Only Way To End The War | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

He doesn't have to. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Lora on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:29:49 AM EST

(2) but that he can not force the Congress to fund the Debacle,

Congress seems to be coreced by other forces run by power, greed, and ultimately money. Why do you think they have not yet and do not seem to be actually ending the war? What do you think is behind cave-in after cave-in, in the face of growing public censure of Bush and the war? Certainly not Bush's feewings.

Cut Funding and De-Authorize The War (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by john horse on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:57:29 AM EST

I'm in favor of a vote to de-authorize the war, followed by Feingold's proposal to cut funding.

Its a one-two punch. First you remove the legislative authority for Bush to be in Iraq. Then you cut the funding to make it possible.

Reid-Feingold will be the second of (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by oculus on Sun May 06, 2007 at 02:13:43 PM EST

three acts, per today's NY Times front page article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/washington/06left.html?ref=todayspaper

Check out the last three paragraphs.

wasted bandwidth (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Che's Lounge on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:02:38 AM EST

(much)Shorter Telex:

Don't rock the boat.

Rather that Talex and Obey should learn to swim, or quit if it's too hot.

We call them "special elections".

Reid-Feingold Will Never (1.00 / 3) (#3)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:38:07 AM EST

make it to the floor. Not only because it would never pass in the Senate at this time...

But because the public does not want that approach at this time

CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 20-24, 2007
"The Democrats in Congress have proposed to fund the Iraq war only if the U.S. sets a timetable for troop withdrawal, too. George W. Bush has stated he will veto that proposal. If George W. Bush does veto it, what should the Democrats in Congress do next: should they try to withhold funding for the war until George W. Bush accepts a timetable for troop withdrawal, or should they allow funding for the war, even if there is no timetable?"
Withhold Funding - - - Allow Funding - - - -Unsure
----------- 36% ---------------- 56% ----------------- 8%

Reid Feingold Framework (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:43:12 AM EST

not the bill. When will you actually read about the subject instead of spouting the same thing.

BTW, did you know that the Reid-Feingold framework does not require withholding anything now? Of course you do not. Because you do not have the foggiest notion of what it is about.

Please, for Gawd's sake, READ ABOUT IT, instead of continually posting your nonsequitors.


Ah! Framework (none / 0) (#7)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:00:38 PM EST

Big difference huh?

It is just another call by you to defund the war by using another name. The same ramifications exist as pointed out in this mornings thread as does the obstacle of public support.

I see all of you want to address those poll numbers by using the Ostrich Approach. Well you can ignore it but the public won't.

You want out at all costs even if it does go against public sentiment - the same public that could turn on us and vote the repubs back in - and ultimately land us in Iran.

And then who would you blame for Iran? The repubs that you laid the groundwork for to put them back in power?

And then if we were to end up back in Iraq which would be highly likely - what is it you would have ultimately accomplished? Nothing. You would have made it worse.

It's painful - but September will be the tipping point.


talex, can you help me out with something? (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by conchita on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:12:56 PM EST

and i don't mean this in a confrontational way, but would you please telling me specifically what it is you advocate doing now? i will go back to the other post and see if you outlined it. right about now, it feels like you are here just to attack. based on some of your comments at dkos, i don't think that is the case, but it would be helpful for me if you could clarify.


Amen, Conchita (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by robotalk on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:33:58 PM EST

Exactly what I was going to say. Here's the thing. I would prefer that there be a plan for withdrawal that would not leave chaos--that there be intensive diplomacy and some neutral force to replace us as "peacekeepers." But there is limited possibility of this--and there simply is no such possibility of workable diplomacy by or with the Bush administration. They have squandered all our credibility.

Personally, I would offer no funding bill. Let Bush come up with a reasonable proposal that can pass the Congress. It's his war, after all.


OK (3.00 / 2) (#16)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:46:15 PM EST

In simple terms I advocate patience.

I believe the leadership is doing the best they can with a diverse membership.

I believe they have weighed the consequences of defunding and long ago stated they would not do that. I accept that as a reality. Their views may change as the publics views change but until the public changes the leadership will respect the publics views.

It would be hypocritical for Reid and Pelosi to say Bush is not respecting the publics view about timelines and then turn around themselves and not respect the publics view about defunding - wouldn't it?

I advocate trying to do all we can now - which we have been - but at the same time working toward bringing over repubs to our side and ultimately getting a veto proof majority. Thoughtful bloggers like Meteor Blades hold that view also regarding a veto proof majority.

Some say it can't be done. Others say it can. There is no harm in trying. We already have three repubs wanting to stop the war in the senate and more and more are teetering our way. PATTY MURRAY attested to that a few weeks ago on the PBS New Hour.

I think come September a tipping point could be reached as reports of the surge come out.

I also advocate for responsible activism. To me it makes no sense beating up our leadership when their hands are tied in what they can do. It makes no sense beating them up to defund when they have said they won't do that for reasons I have already described elsewhere.

That kind of activism only weakens us as activists. It gains us no respect with the party, and without respect you have no influence. No influence and what is the point of activism? Influence is everything. That is why MoveOn pulled back and supported the house bill. They wanted to maintain some semblance of influence.

Irresponsible activism does nothing but anger the party. That is why activists received zero props from the party regarding the cancellation of the Fox Debates. Obviously the Party did not like that. Irresponsible activism is also the reason David Obey, who has been against this war from day one, had his outburst. You can only push people so far before they react adversely.

So those are some of the things I advocate.


I know this is hard to comprehend (5.00 / 7) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:02:38 PM EST

for some if they aren't military or Iraqi, but patience is killing people and it is getting worse every single day. I am an action person when something needs to take place in my life so here I am. One thing I find very troubling in your post is how you can be patient while all this killing and death is taking place. It mars my thoughts every day. I have no patience for it and people who do frankly frighten me right now. Our leaders hands are not tied either. They only have to get tough and be tough. I don't feel human sitting around during all this calmly and quietly. I will not go gently into that good night and others in Iraq are going there as I type, and it is my country's fault. This is my country and I will do something about it, what is in my power to do every day until it is finished. To be patient at this point is to be complicit in this war of senseless death. To say that our leaders hands are tied is to lie while others die. I'm sorry but I can't do that.


thank you (none / 0) (#20)
by conchita on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:53:42 PM EST

i'm on my way out the door at the moment, but will respond later if others haven't already said what i would have said.


Thank You (none / 0) (#22)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:56:53 PM EST

for being the only one here who is open to carrying on a intelligent discussion without attacking me or troll rating legitimate posts.


: small and quick clarification (none / 0) (#24)
by conchita on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:06:17 PM EST

i am not the only one, and, for the record, i gave you a few ones too for some of the attacks. it seemed like you were coming here just to attack and i had no clear idea of where you were coming from until i read that exchange on dkos with annefrank. that is not to say that i do not see some validity to it nor is it to say that i agree, but for me it opened the possibility for discussion rather than just sparring. but as i said, i have leash on the dog and we must get out before the afternoon is lost.

argh! should have been "tell" (none / 0) (#13)
by conchita on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:30:03 PM EST

not "telling."

just checked btd's other diary, and couldn't find it there either. on dkos, you wrote about benchmarks:

I don't see them as a farce on the Dem's part. As I said in my original post that you responded to I see them as a way to put non-political progress in Iraq "On the Record". Bush won't put zero progress on the record or even talk about it in a straight forward manner. So it is important that someone does so the public has a way of measuring of political progress there. As I said in my post I think that measurement will further win public sentiment to our side which is what we need.
As for the Repubs yeah it is a bit of a farce as they do not at this point want to put any consequences behind the missed benchmarks to actually make them mean something. But on the political side we need to 'inch' them along with us and any benchmarks they back is a statement on their part that they believe that political progress should be made. Once they are on record voting for that and the benchmarks are not met then they are painted into a corner about what they are willing to do about it.
If the answer is nothing then we simply show the public that they voted for progress but like Bush are unwilling to enforce progress. Politically we win there (think '08).
But if they do wake up and say we must do something about no progress then they just might move another 'inch' in our direction and sign on to something with teeth in it.
So either way as long as we get them to accept benchmarks - even without consequences for not meeting them - we win something in the end.
Do benchmarks at this point end the war? No. But what are our other legitimate options?
Without the Repubs we will never get Bush to sign anything so we must attempt to 'inch' them along and I believe that we can make progress on that. Already additional Repubs like Snowe are presenting their own bills to end the war. More will follow. We just need to take their hand and lead them one step at a time.
That is why at this point I endorse short term funding with benchmarks. And then in another 60 days the surge will have reached a point where everyone who said we will measure it's effectiveness in September will have to admit what is going on there which will likely be chaos. Then some more Repubs should be ready to move more in our direction.
If we slowly lead them maybe by March '08 we can actually have a veto proof majority. March '08 was a goal anyway. If we can't get there in one big jump then we should strive to get there in increments. It's more painful that way but in the end result could be the same - Out in March '08.

is this what you are advocating?


: Yes Benchmarks (none / 0) (#17)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:48:07 PM EST

they are a step forward and they can bring along some repubs.

Gor crissakes (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:40:21 PM EST

I have referred to it as a framework forever precisely because enacted legislation is not possible.

You seem not to understand this.

You join Decon in my ignore list.


: Why do You keep (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:51:00 PM EST

quibbling over words and refuse to address the actual issues I post?
Set an example here.

You intentionally misrepresent the meaning (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:44:06 AM EST

of that question. You are a troll.


And You (1.00 / 3) (#8)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:01:21 PM EST

are a cry baby


I'll spell it out for you (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:05:52 PM EST

That poll question asks about cutting off funds RIGHT NOW. It is OBVIOUS that Democrats will have to prepare the country for that.


And They Are (none / 0) (#19)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:53:05 PM EST

Didn't you know that? Can't you see what they are doing as we type? You do read the news don't you?


: Waiting until September (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:30:08 PM EST

and Funding through 2008 is NOT getting to public ready for defunding.

A cry baby ;)? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:12:59 PM EST

Odd sort of name calling


Yesterday it was "Jehovah's Witness." (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by oculus on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:19:58 PM EST

Calling someone (none / 0) (#21)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:54:27 PM EST

a troll every third post is odd also. Especially when I post views that demand legitimate discussion.


Your problem is that you DEAMAND (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:29:26 PM EST

response as though you have some special insight. You do not.


: Official Notice (1.00 / 1) (#27)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:40:19 PM EST

You have nothing to say other than insults and troll ratings.
Therefore I am through reading your posts and responding to you. The same applies to Edgar.
I know that is no loss to you as you two do fine stroking each other.

Politically Incompetent or Incompetently Corrupt? (none / 0) (#2)
by seabos84 on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:33:13 AM EST

I've taken the view that too many of our DC Dem are politically incompetent to fight the fascists, or they are incompetently corrupt.

Why do I think this way? There are more alternatives, but, a frequent one I've heard for decades, and that one I hear still hear today

- there is almost no difference between the parties, and the top Dems are corrupt too.

well, that alternative does NOT work for scores and scores of great people I've meet in campaigns who give some time and give some money and give a shot at beating the fascists.

I don't want to disparage those scores and scores I've met and worked with over the decades, but, the way this Iraq vote b.s. is going, the part of me which suspects that too many of the DC Dems aren't any better grows.

I settle for 'politically incompetent' or 'incompetently corrupt' cuz

lets suppose on Iraq one is member fo the BTD church? Why can't the Dems close the deal with the public? Cuz they are politically incompetent.

IF they are not politically incompetent, then they are incompetently corrupt. Competently corrupt is Michael Milken or Keating or Neil Bush or Cheney - steal zillions, and either walk or do a minor stint in a club fed and return, not to power, but to enough affluence to quit working.

Our Dems ain't stealing like Cheney or Milken or Kenny boy - if they are corrupt, and that piece of me which believes they are corrupt grows daily, they ain't corrupt on that kind of scale. Our corrupt Dems are chumps - they're content to sweep up the mess and pick up the loose coins after the heist. That is incompetent.

While I kicked 10 bucks a piece into the webb, tester, hackett, votevets and a few other campaigns,

I can NOT and NEVER will work for the go$$am Cantwells, ever, ever ever again. I called her office and Patty Murrays on 9 April, and I got "no decision" on reid feingold.

ugh.

DEMOCRATIC United States Senators and NO DECISION on stopping the fascists?

I gotta call them to do their freaking job? how many people call me to see if my alarm clock is set and if I'll be on time to work?

when they hell they gonna do their jobs?

rmm.

Iraq War Funding (none / 0) (#29)
by timber on Sun May 06, 2007 at 07:04:18 PM EST

I say--temporary emergency funding until July, then resubmit bill again where perhaps, more Republicans will join and their numbers can overcome the veto.