home

What Can The Democrats Do About The Iraq Debacle?

Via andgarden, Frank Rich seems to believe that those of us agitating for the Democratic Congress ending the Iraq Debacle by setting a date certain for not funding, what I term the Reid-Feingold framework, are being unrealistic and unreasonable. Like the Democrats in Congress and many pundits and bloggers, Mr. Rich believes Republicans will end the Debacle:

Contrary to Mr. Edwards, only Republicans in Congress can overcome presidential vetoes and in so doing force Mr. Bush’s hand on the war. As the bottom drops out of Iraq and the polls, those G.O.P. votes are starting to line up.

If only this were true. Mr. Rich must know that Republicans have been singing this song for a while. Mr. Rich's colleague, David Broder, has told us that John Warner is the key. And Senator Warner is illuminative on the subject. Senator Warner has made noises for some time about ending the Debacle, but always votes for the Bush plan, whatever it is at the time, including the Surge. A review of Senator Warner's statements and actions is instructive:

On October 5, 2006, Senator Warner returned from a trip to Iraq saying:

[Warner] said the military had done what it could and that Congress must make some "bold decisions" if, after three months, progress is not made by the Iraqis to calm ethnic violence and hasten reconstruction. . . . Warner said he sees the next 60 to 90 days as most critical juncture yet in the war because Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki is growing into the job and says he is committed to disarming militias. . . . Warner said he was told on his latest trip that, at the earliest, U.S. and Iraqi forces may have an agreement at the end of the year outlining when and how responsibility could begin to be transferred to the Iraqis.

240 days later, and Congress has made no bold decisions; no agreements on an Iraqi takeover of security have even been broached. Indeed, what we saw instead was a "surge" of American troops into Iraq. What did Senator Warner say about that? Why he torpedoed the NON-binding resolution condemning the Surge.

Recently, Senator Warner torpedoed the NON-binding timelines in the Iraq Supplemental; his NON-binding benchmarks proposal became the final version of the bill.

What Broder and Rich propose is what I have termed the Waiting for the Godot Republicans strategy. Mr. Rich knows the reference:

Democrats and anti-war groups that are waiting for Republicans to move to end the Debacle now sound like this:

Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?
Estragon: Yes, let's go.

They do not move.

One final point. Mr. Rich was kind enough to link to my post, but I think he misstates my views, and more importantly, the views on ending the war of Senators Reid, Feingold, Dodd, Rep. McGovern and all the other supporters of this approach when he writes:

On the Democratic side, the left is furious at the new Congress’s failure to instantly fulfill its November mandate to end the war in Iraq. . . . It’s not exactly clear how a legislative Groundhog Day could accomplish this feat when the president’s obstinacy knows no bounds and the Democrats’ lack of a veto-proof Congressional majority poses no threat to his truculence. . . . What the angriest proselytizers on the left and right have in common is a conviction that their political parties will commit hara-kiri if they don’t adhere to their bases’ strict ideological orders. “If Democrats do not stick to their guns on Iraq,” a blogger at TalkLeft.com warns, there will be “serious political consequences in 2008.” In an echo of his ideological opposite, Mr. Limbaugh labels the immigration bill the “Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act.”

First, Reid-Feingold is not "instant withdrawal." The Reid-Feingold framework is not instant withdrawal. From my post:

This is a preemptive post, because I am positive that the naysayer will trot out the same critiques about the NOT funding the Debacle approach that was used when Feingold first proposed his Not Funding plan in January. To wit, we don't have the votes, McConnell will filibuster, Bush will veto. My response remains: 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.

Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.

But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that it will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that political battle too.

This approach is perfectly consistent with the so called "short leash" plan, where the Debacle will be funded in 3 month intervals. But it is only consistent if BOTH are done. The intention to NOT fund the war after March 31, 2008 must be made the Dem position now.

The short leash must be pulled to a stop on March 31, 2008.

Say it now so you can end it then. If you do not say it now, then you can't end it on March 31, 2008.

Second, I can't say Rush Limbaugh is right in his characterization of Bush's immigration initiative, but it seems clear that the Republican Party is in deep turmoil over it. Similarly, the Democratic Party is in some disarray on Iraq. And yes, I do predict that the Democratic Party will suffer in 2008 if it is not viewed as having made a principled stand against the war. Certainly I could be wrong, but I think the view I espouse is not an angry one. It is a considered one.

But, to be frank, ending the Debacle is more important to me than the Democrats' fortunes in 2008. I won't be pulling my punches on the issue with the 2008 Dem fortunes in mind. Does that make me an "angry prostyletizer?" Well then, so be it.

< Sunday Book Reading | Limbaugh And Me: The Angry Proselytizers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I love Frank Rich (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:49:44 AM EST
    except for when he gets is completely wrong.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:57:33 AM EST
    I appreciate him linking to my post, particularly that one.

    Parent
    Even if you have to be compared to Rush? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:05:27 AM EST
    I'd have to think long and hard about that one myself. Maybe more people will actually read you, though.

    Parent
    Interestingly (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:07:55 AM EST
    When Rush says the immigration bill is a disaster for the Republicans, he is not wrong.

    So if he compares what I say about Iraq to what Rush says about the immigration bill and its effects on the Republican Party, I think that is not unfavorable.

    Parent

    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:11:45 AM EST
    I think it's a silly comparison though. All you have to do is ask yourself why the base is so upset by the immigration compromise.

    Parent
    As MaryB says (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:13:05 AM EST
    Anything that can get the NOT funding issue into the ether is welcome.

    I'll take the Rush comparison for that. Anytime.

    See if you can get Broder to do it.

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:17:40 AM EST
    I know a couple of the bookers from Hardball, but they want "names" and people with TV experience.

    Parent
    Tell em (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:20:27 AM EST
    all put on a good show . . .

    Parent
    I'll be you'd do well (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:23:03 AM EST
    in a shouting match with Chris Matthews. . .

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:24:31 AM EST
    I bet he'd love me.

    I'd be blasting Dems.  . .

    Parent

    Oy. n/t (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:27:54 AM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:09:59 AM EST
    it widens the audience for discussion, hopefully.

    And Frank Rich has been right about so much over the last few months, perhaps he'll eventually see the light on this too.

    Parent

    Since the discussion (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:14:10 AM EST
    has been basically here, just about anything will widen the discussion.

    As I have mentioned, I find the performance of the so called Netroots on Iraq to have been utterly appalling.

    Parent

    Sorry Mary (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by talex on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 04:29:52 PM EST
    this is so far out of mainstream America that Rich or no one else will buy it. Like Greenwald noted the public has grown up with the perception that defunding the troops is taboo.

    The only way they will accept defunding is with a Bill that sets a timeline for responsible withdrawal. And the only way that will happen is with a veto proof majority.

    You are hitching your horse to the wrong wagon. You can hope but you are hoping against hope.

    The momentum right now is with a veto proof majority regardless of Armando's denial of that fact. And as he even says the only place defunding is being talked about is here.

    "Since the discussion has been basically here".

    That represents not even a grain of sand on a small beach. It is so far fetched that it is radial. No serious Lefty group of any consequence or of no consequence for that matter even entertains the idea of defunding as Armando suggests. His is a lone voice in a world of reality.

    Parent

    Re: perception that defunding the troops is taboo (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 04:49:09 PM EST
    Talex, as Big Tent said here the other to you: "It is hilarious that you cite [Greenwald] as SUPPORT. Greenwald is indicting YOU!"

    And what you are doing now by saying here "Like Greenwald noted the public has grown up with the perception that defunding the troops is taboo" is lying again, to try to give the false impression that what Greenwald said supports you.

    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").

    Talex, you have switched from lying about what Big Tent says to lying through ommission about what Greenwald says.


    Parent
    BIg Tent (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 04:51:01 PM EST
    You're welcome to remove my comment above if you like. I thought the point needed to be made, though.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    No, let's leave it.

    My obect was and is when Talex does not tell the truth about our statements here.

    You are correcting the record.

    But the distortion and falsehoods about what WE say here can notbe permitted.

    That is the bright line I make for Talex.

    Parent

    Heh, I'll try to restrain myself. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:08:12 PM EST
    I have a bad habit of calling out obvious lies, though. ;-)

    Lying like talex does, and lies by others, are the reason the Iraq occupation started, and now they are the reason the Democrats in Congress aren't ending it. And being fed lies is probably most of the reason Congresscritters believe that not funding the occupation will hurt the troops, IMO. Talex is furthering those lies.

    Parent

    For example, (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:25:31 PM EST
    As Dadler noted just the other day here:

    Below is the response I just received from my congressperson, Susan Davis, after I contacted her with my disappointment and disgust with her vote to capitulate.  It is a litany of right-wing talking points with one doozy of an inanity (and I hope merely a typo):

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the most recent vote on the FY 2007 Emergency Supplemental.  It was good to hear from you, and I'd like to address your concerns.

    As someone who voted against going to war in 2002, supported a timeline for bringing home the troops, and continuously fought hard to change the course of the war in the House Armed Service Committee, there is no doubt in my mind that we must end this war.  The reality is opposing this bill would not have achieved that goal.

    I have consistently supported supplemental spending measures for Iraq because of the importance to our troops in the field.  I understand that many of my constituents are disappointed in my vote.  However, cutting off war funding today will not only impact the troops in the field, many of whom are from San Diego, but will also impact military families at home as President Bush would take funding from other sources to fund his war.  I cannot in good conscience put our all-volunteer force in that position.  

    I would not have voted for this measure if I thought it meant the war would end soon.  Rest assured, I will continue to make Iraq a top priority and will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues to debate this pivotal issue.  I look forward to supporting measures that will end the war and will not put our troops at risk.

    I suspect she doesn't even know she is passing on falsehoods to her constituents. She is probably so busy she doesn't have time to or maybe doens't even even know how to verify what is being fed to her by her leadership.

    Either way, this is a very serious problem. The lies are so widespread and entrenched. Talex, I believe, knows better.

    Parent

    Debunking lies. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:32:06 PM EST
    Emergency supplemental funding is not for the troops. It never has been for the troops. It will never be for the troops.

    NOT passing emergency supplemental funding does not hurt the troops. It never has hurt the troops. It will never hurt the troops.

    Not passing emergency supplemental funding is simply NOT FUNDING the occupation. That is all it is.
    ...
    When the Democrats or anyone else claim that the money is for the troops, they, just like George Bush, are quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.

    The TROOPS are funded by regular appropriations. DOD budget. Emergency supplemental funding has nothing to do with "funding the troops".

    It does buy, among other things such as logistical support from Halliburton, Parsons, and DynCorp, fuel, in theater equipment maintenance, bullets, cluster bombs, etc., etc., IOW all the "stuff" needed to continue the occupation. The troops use that "stuff" in the continuance of that occupation, and to defend themselves and stay alive (as best they can) while continuing that occupation.

    The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years. There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without the emergency supplemental the Democrats just passed.

    Link

    Parent
    Senator Reid and Senator Feingold (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 04:43:02 PM EST
    and the 171 Democrats in the House who voted for the McGovern Amendment and the 142 who voted against the Iraq Supplemental are out of the mainstream?

    No kidding.

    On a related note, thank you for sticking to arguments and not characterizing other persons' statements.

    We'll get along just fine if you can do that.

    Parent

    You Are Out Of The Mainstream (none / 0) (#92)
    by talex on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:39:07 PM EST
    in saying to bypass a defunding bill and just fund up to a 'date certain' and then just stop funding without a bill saying funding will stop.

    As I said:

    The only way they (the public)will accept defunding is with a Bill that sets a timeline for responsible withdrawal. And the only way that will happen is with a veto proof majority.

    That is mainstream. You are not.

    and the 171 Democrats in the House who voted for the McGovern Amendment and the 142 who voted against the Iraq Supplemental are out of the mainstream

    They voted right. It is just that the McGovern Amendment was largely symbolic in order to toss the A-W Left a well deserved bone. It never was going to pass and even if it did it would never see the light of day in the Senate. And it would be a sure veto anyway.

    The 142 voted right also to no avail.

    We know we have most of the votes from our side that we need. That has never been an issue and is why I give no respect for those who bash the Dems who are on the right side of this. Or those that bash our leaders. The bashers are clueless as to the realities in the chambers.

    So yeah 171 and 142. Now all we need is a veto proof majority or we are all in until 2009 unless Bush heeds to his party who are heeding to the Dems and starts withdrawing troops prior to 11/2008 under the cover of B-H which he talked about in a little over a week ago and both Broder and Ignatius among others have chronicled.

    Veto proof majority or B-H - whichever comes first Is A-OK as long as troops start coming home and any remaining are doing something other than fighting someone else's civil war. I'd prefer a veto proof majority as that could happen sooner but I'm pretty sure Bush is trying to preempt that with B-H and drag things out a little longer.

    Parent

    Re: You Are Out Of The Mainstream (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:04:27 PM EST
    It took you this long to notice?

    Parent
    hey (none / 0) (#17)
    by taylormattd on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:23:07 AM EST
    send me an email next time you put up a diary, ok?  :)

    Parent
    I do so very rarely (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:20:54 AM EST
    Anyway, my email is my username here at Gmail. Feel free to send me yours.

    Parent
    very disappointing (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:18:00 AM EST
    rich is one of the few msm columnists with whom i usually agree.

    i prefer this quote, from stoppard's rosenrantz and guildenstern are dead, as guildenstern is about to be led away:

    There must have been a moment, at the beginning, when we could have said -- no. But somehow we missed it.


    At the beginning (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:30:52 AM EST
    Dems could have said no one supposes.

    But holding the 51 in the Dem Caucus would not have been likely to stop the war. The Houise was GOP controlled.

    Now the House can stop the war, by not funding it.

    So, I don't agree with you.

    Parent

    The House Can't (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by talex on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:27:12 AM EST
    stop it on their own. You would not have the votes in the House to stop it. And Pelosi wouldn't and shouldn't pull the plug on her own. Quit saying foolish and unrealistic things.

    Parent
    Lying again (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:35:02 AM EST
    The House can indeed NOT fund the war. If a bill does not pass the House, it does not become law.

    I do not mind that you are an idiot.

    I mind that you are an inveterate liar.

    Do it again, and I will ask that you be banned.

    Parent

    asdf (1.00 / 2) (#41)
    by talex on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    The House can indeed NOT fund the war. If a bill does not pass the House, it does not become law.

    No kidding?

    So if a funding bill does not pass then another bill that would pass would be crafted. As in what just happened. Then it goes to conference.

    If a bill to NOT fund does not pass then one TO fund must be crafted.

    There are not many examples IF ANY of the House or the Senate acting independently of each other on legislation. They may stall on some bills but eventually they are taken up.

    And there is now way that Pelosi is going act on her own and defund by not bringing up a bill. No way. That is not her charge to act independently.

    BTW - I do mind that you are an idiot.

    Parent

    MUST (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    Well that settles it.

    If a bill to NOT fund does not pass then one TO fund must be crafted.

    You really are an idiot aren't you?

    But let me ask you this, when MUST a President sign a bill?

    Parent

    Never (none / 0) (#60)
    by talex on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:30:14 PM EST
    But let me ask you this, when MUST a President sign a bill?

    Never. A President doesn't have to sign any bill. He has the constitutional authority to not sign a bill via the veto.

    What he then does is send a necessary bill back to congress to craft a bill he will sign.

    What's your point?


    Parent

    well, no, it doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:27:46 PM EST
    talex said, in part:

    If a bill to NOT fund does not pass then one TO fund must be crafted.

    not really. to be blunt, bills could continue being passed defunding only the US military presence in iraq. naturally, these would be vetoed. the administration, along with it's enabler's in congress, would scream "lack of support for the troops!" this would be crap, of course. how can wanting to take our people out of harm's way be lack of support for them?

    the MSM would feed off this as well, including frank rich. the key is for the dem leadership to hold firm, and point out, in public, the idiocy of that assertion. the big question is, do they have the smarts and guts to do it?

    the pres can't make up bills all by his lonesome. he has no power of the purse, that is solely vested in congress. at some point, this test of wills comes to a head. put the ball squarely in his court, and force the issue. congress doesn't have to pass anything, should it choose not to. show me where, in the constitution, that congress is required to pass legislation.


    Parent

    talex, you're not ::that:: stupid, are you? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    It takes NO votes to NOT pass a funding bill.

    Parent
    Forcing Bush's hand (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:52:40 AM EST
    Democrats can "force Mr. Bush's hand on the war" by NOT FUNDING IT past March 31. NO REPUBLICAN VOTES ARE REQUIRED TO NOT PASS A BILL THAT FUNDS PAST THAT DATE. Sorry for shouting, but it's amazing how people seem to miss that little essential point of this strategy. Either actively pass a bill that restricts funding past the date, or fail to pass a bill, or the bill gets vetoed - it doesn't matter, they're all the same in terms of defunding: they all provide NO MORE MONEY FOR THE WAR AFTER THE ANNOUNCED DATE. Bush can't produce the funds himself, and he won't strand the troops in Iraq if it's been made clear to the American people for the ten months between now and then that any stranding that goes on is the fault of George W. Bush, not Congress.

    This wrong-headed thinking that there's nothing Congress can do to end the war was captured in Michael Kinsley's op-ed:

    So there is a "power of the purse," you see. Congress can cut off funds for a war that people don't like....

    But what happens if you, as a member of Congress, do attempt to use the power of the purse? Sens. Clinton, Obama and Chris Dodd (also running for president) voted against the final Iraq funding bill because all meaningful deadlines and timetables had been stripped out so that President Bush would sign it. That Wall Street Journal editorial accuses these three Democratic senators of "vot[ing] to undermine U.S. troops in the middle of a difficult mission." If this is true of last week's vote, it will always be true of any attempt to cut off a war by cutting off funds. Unless the Journal is in favor of undermining U.S. troops, this makes the alleged "power of the purse" unusable.

    Bush wants to force us to be in Iraq for the next 50 years. The very very few Republicans who will actually dare buck his will (beyond some tough talk) certainly won't do so in time to get us out before the next administration, which will have a fresh set of political problems with regard to getting out. So it's March or else it could be a decade or more before we can extricate ourselves from this counterproductive, godawful mess and try to pursue a more sane foreign policy in the ME again.


    He has, for as long as he's been here, (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:58:26 AM EST
    been a clear example of Jeralyn's comment policy definition of chatterer.

    You Forgot THis (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:34:20 PM EST

    All points of view are welcome on TalkLeft, with the following exception:

    TalkLeft will limit commenters to four comments a day if, in its sole discretion, the commenter is a "chatterer," loosely defined as one who both holds opposing views from those expressed by TalkLeft and :
    Posts numerous times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread; or

    Posts numerous times a day and insults or calls other commenters names or repeatedly makes the same point with the effect of annoying other commenters.


    Impeachment (none / 0) (#9)
    by womanwarrior on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:14:37 AM EST
    Okay, BTD, please 'splain me two things:  

    1.  Why wouldn't withdrawing authorization for the war in Iraq work?

    2.  Why shouldn't we move to impeach W and Dick before they attack Iran?  

    This defunding stuff is sounding so wishy washy.  September?, March?  We are continuing to kill people and sacrificing our young people and our armed forces.  We shouldn't be doing that.  

    Thanks in advance for your responses.  

    Veto proof majorities (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:19:50 AM EST
    on both.

    The NOT defunding plan, which is indeed wishy washy, is what I promote because I believe it is the only one that can work politically.

    Which is the irony of Rich's characterization of me.

    I am actually being pragmatic, but focused on the goal of ending the war, not getting Demns elected in 2008. though I believe both go hand in hand.

    The so-called Netroots is for electing Dems ONLY. They care about Iraq as an electoral issue.

    Parent

    My problem, too. (none / 0) (#22)
    by dkmich on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 06:57:49 AM EST
    The so-called Netroots is for electing Dems ONLY. They care about Iraq as an electoral issue.
      I have had the feeling that I am being rah-rah'ed, manipulated, and used.  Iraq is an issue for me, but I am concerned about many more issues than just this war.  No matter the issue, someone is always about supporting or excusing bad Dems.  I'm not leaving, but I am not following either.

    Parent
    "a principled stand against the war" (none / 0) (#18)
    by Andreas on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:04:09 AM EST
    Big Tent Democrat wrote:

    I do predict that the Democratic Party will suffer in 2008 if it is not viewed as having made a principled stand against the war.

    It already has "made a stand" to support the war and it is therefore time for opponents of the war to draw conclusions and build the party which has "a principled stand against the war" - the Socialist Equality Party.


    But what about the Waiting for Godot Democrat (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stewieeeee on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 04:16:45 AM EST
    Strategy... the Democrats you have to wait for to get on the Reid/Feingold framework bandwagon?

    Pick your poison.

    Try to get Republicans to join in a bipartisan framework that excludes defunding.

    Or try to get the Democrats not currently supporting Reid/Feingold to support Reid/Feingold.

    Listen.  Without trying to offend anyone, and with all the hopes of being taken even a little bit seriously.

    It just seems to me both scenarios are, at the very least, equally unlikely.

    Or at least, if people believe the second scenario is more likely, then it has yet to be made clear how that is.  Is there a pattern of Democrats responding to the "stick" that I've missed?

    frank rich is a maroon (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:22:52 AM EST
    always has been, always will be. if he and maureen dowd were to procreate, they'd set the human genome pool back several hundred thousand years intellectually.

    i can't think of anything mr. rich has been right on, in the past 15 years. he is, to paraphrase newton minow, "a vast, intellectual wasteland".

    simply put, sen. warner's state, va (mine too), is home to a huge military presence, active duty and retired. as such, he's not going to do anything that might remotely upset them, as long as he plans to continue running for re-election.

    since the 68 election, va has been pretty much a republican stronghold, in large part due to the extensive military presence in the state. as well, the sw part is historically conservative.

    this would explain the sen's reticence to rock the prez's boat.

    bottom line: we know the dems haven't a sufficient majority to overcome a veto. so what? keep pushing bills defunding the war, by a soon date certain, and let bush & the repubs take the heat.

    not rocket science, it just requires balls.

    Being part of the national (none / 0) (#25)
    by jpete on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:51:46 AM EST
    discourse is no small thing!  I remember a brief discussion a couple of weeks ago about netroots leaders; I wonder how that will look in a year's time.

    Deliberate, or just stupid? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    One final point. Mr. Rich was kind enough to link to my post, but I think he misstates my views, and more importantly, the views on ending the war of Senators Reid, Feingold, Dodd, Rep. McGovern and all the other supporters of this approach when he writes:[quote]

    I agree.  He doesn't get it.  Question is, is he stupid, or brainwashed, or is it deliberate spin to undermine an actual viable way to end the war?

    What does it make you? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    But, to be frank, ending the Debacle is more important to me than the Democrats' fortunes in 2008. I won't be pulling my punches on the issue with the 2008 Dem fortunes in mind. Does that make me an "angry prostyletizer?" Well then, so be it.
    I think what it makes you is someone who believes that doing the principled thing by ending the Debacle will, as the biggest side effect, improve if not ensure the Democrats' fortunes in 2008.

    I agree. One has to follow the other. You've got it in the right order. And dragging out the Debacle now so that next year they can say they will end it if elected will be their downfall.

    If they don't end it this year, the obvious question and spin they will face in 2008 from angry Democrats, and from a gloating and overpowering GOP spinning media machine, will be: "Why should anyone believe Democrats now, when they could have ended it last year?"

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    An honest person could disagree with me on my assessment.

    A liar will lie about what I said. That other person chose to be a liar.

    Parent

    Dishonest people (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:44:43 PM EST
    are afraid of you, and because they are dishonest are unable to make any honest argument against you.

    All they have left is lies, and trying to drown you out.

    Parent

    I'm going to leave of the Talex disturbance (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:55:28 PM EST
    for another hour or so but I wil be cleaning up this thread after that.

    I will be removing Talex's original comment, my responses and other related to Talex.

    There is no reason for allowing Talex to disrupt this discussion.

    I moved it up (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:07:47 PM EST
    I am taking down all the Talex related posts.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    Looks like you missed some, though.

    Parent
    Some were a discussion of Congressional power (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    I'm going to leave those.

    Parent
    Good. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:11:26 PM EST
    Then the discussion can go back to your question "What Can The Democrats Do About The Iraq Debacle?", and to the merits of the Democrat controlled Congress NOT funding it after a date certain by NOT voting on any bill designed to do so, and announcing that now.

    Cut the Bush Administration off at the knees, by giving them no choice, and nothing to vote against.

    Elegant simplicity. Only people concerned more with political gain than with peoples lives oppose doing so.

    Take the high ground, stay on the offensive, and force the GOP onto the defensive. Let them try to gain support above what they have now by screaming and crying for money to continue an occupation the whole country, and the Iraqi people, oppose. If they can drum up enough support for that people will be getting the government they deserve.


    Parent

    Talex (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:46:01 PM EST
    When I delete your comment, whatever you think of my decision, you can not re-post it.

    Frank Rich might "get it" (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 06:19:27 PM EST
    if he didn't have to wade through so much garbage.  So, thanks for the clean-up.  He's a bright, inquisitive journalist.  

    Parent
    Projecting again, talex? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:56:14 PM EST