The Godot Republicans

As most know by now, the Republican caucus in the Senate blocked an up or down vote on Jim Webb's amendment on troop readiness. The vote was 56-41.

I did not devote much time to the debate in the Senate and, frankly, I won't, as the Republicans will not vote to buck Bush and change course in Iraq, much less vote to end the war.

I respect what Reid and Co. are doing -- they are making sure Republicans can not play this 'talk the talk but not walk the walk' game. But that does nothing to end the Debacle.

My friends (in the rhetoric of the Senate), we all know there is only one way to end the Iraq Debacle, set a date certain when the Democratically controlled Congress will no longer fund the Debacle. Until the Democratic leadership fully embraces this strategy, the Iraq Debacle will not end.

< Special Treatment | A Tribute To Lady Bird Johnson >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not surprising ... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:52:42 PM EST
    ... after the Dems didn't filibuster anything when they were the minority, and did everything to compromise with repubs.

    The repubs are filibustering everything now that they are in the minority.

    You can't reason with terrorists, and no one is more responsible for the growth of terrorism in the world than bush and his cabal of republicans.

    It's pretty fascinating (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:59:55 PM EST
    to see the Republican fake moderates get destroyed, but it's pretty clear why they won't work against the war.  Newsweek reporter Sam Stein wrote about the reason in an important and somewhat overlooked article.  Republicans who break ranks on Iraq get a primary challenge from the right. It's not just Chuck Hagel in Nebraska.
    If only the Blue Dogs and New Dems would wizen up, we could actually stop the war.

    No, no, no ... (3.66 / 3) (#5)
    by Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:08:12 PM EST
    ...haven't you heard? When September comes, all those moderates who are "defecting" will be on "our side."

    If, that is, "our side" means supporting a plan to withdraw, say, a hundred thousands troops while leaving 30-50,000 "residual" troops behind. If, in fact, we can even get a "veto-proof majority" to go that far. Which I doubt.

    I have to stop now, I am wearing out my " key.


    Armando! Meteor (1.00 / 2) (#14)
    by talex on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:02:25 PM EST
    I have yet to hear from either one of you how you are going to cutoff funding without cutting off the troops.

    Bush won't sign a withdrawal bill. Iraq has  been run  supplementals from day one and it is off the regular DOD budget. And monies can't legally be transfered from other DOD accounts as Webb and Sestak have mad that clear. So you just can't so that's it and move on to Finance Reform or some other bill.

    So Armando how do you defund without cutting off the troops?


    Only because (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:05:15 PM EST
    You either refuse to read, or none of it ever sinks in.

    I lean toward the second. Which is it, talex?


    I have (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by taylormattd on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    a feeling it is both.

    Actually, I was giving talex the benefit of doubt (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Edger on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 02:32:15 PM EST
    Because I have a feeling it is "pretending" to be both. With all that implies.

    it's funny that (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by taylormattd on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 02:29:29 PM EST
    someone who repeatedly insists "impeachment is teh only way!!!!!1@" is demanding (already provided) details about defunding.

    It's an elephant stampede, I know. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:13:49 PM EST
    They're stomping all over the democrats every time they send another funding bill to Bush.

    btw (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:18:22 PM EST
    Is "funding" supposed to be spelled with "ck" instead of "nd"?

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:12:29 PM EST
    The more this goes on, the more obvious it becomes that you were right all along.

    agreed (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:48:35 PM EST
    that said, you and i, and anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex, know the democrats can't do it alone, they need significant republican help. they can propose legislation all day long, they can't overcome, by themselves, a bush veto of that legislation. they stand little, if any, chance of getting that help right now.

    knowing that, the best they can do now, in the absence of bush and cheney magically disappearing, and being replaced by pelosi, is to continue to push bills, knowing they'll be vetoed, to do exactly that. shove it down the republican's throats.

    come nov. 2008, shove those bills even farther down their throats.

    realistically, that's about the best they can do.

    No kidding. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:54:11 PM EST
    You mean the Democrats will never have that veto proof majority?

    How about they just stop sending funding bills to Bush.


    How about ... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:31:43 PM EST
    ... they just keep sending funding bills to bush that he won't sign?

    He's the one who won't fund the troops, whether it's armor, hardening humvees, or ACTUALLY LISTENING TO THE TROOPS ON THE GROUND!


    I like this one too (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:33:22 PM EST
    both work fine by me.

    Well... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:46:13 PM EST
    It sounds good. But I'm afraid then they would be vulnerable to charges of playing politics with the troops lives.

    More effective I think to drop the ball firmly in Bush's lap and:

    ...set a hard date certain by which the withdrawal is complete (e.g. March 2008) AND INCLUDES a commitment by Congress to fund, presumably with the LAST supplemental, up to that date and not beyond, while AT THE SAME TIME telling Bush he has until that date to complete withdrawal. Thus handing the ball to him, and putting the responsibility for the safety of the troops on him.
    That way they can nail him to the wall with:
    "Are you Mr. President, and Mr. Secretary, prepared to leave troops in Iraq without adequate supplies?"

    [and] Watch them squirm, watch them dance. They will not be able to say "yes." This is what the media and the Democrats should have been asking, over and over again, to frame this debate properly.

    is there a list of names (none / 0) (#11)
    by Stewieeeee on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:34:15 PM EST
    of the republicans who blocked this vote?

    It will (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Stewieeeee on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:08:10 PM EST




    inspiring work again, a/bdt (none / 0) (#13)
    by Miss Devore on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:53:35 PM EST
    Jeralyn? (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 01:43:24 AM EST
    i haven't a clue (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:39:12 PM EST
    You mean the Democrats will never have that veto proof majority?

    but until they do, the best they can muster is bills they know he'll refuse to sign, and few, if any republicans will support them on. then lay into them come nov. 2008

    ... they just keep sending funding bills to bush that he won't sign?

    deja vu all over again! um, i could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure that's exactly what i said, in my original post.

    with respect to passing legislation, saying they won't fund after a date certain, that still leaves it in bush's court. by all means, yes, go for it. let him veto it and then shove it down his throat, through his soft, mushy teeth (with apologies to george allen!).

    Here is (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:47:52 PM EST
    Iraq (none / 0) (#20)
    by rmirman on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 01:07:23 AM EST
    The way to end the war is to force Bush and the Republicans to admit that continuing has no rationale except to make the next president take the responsibility for Bush's disasters. How to do this is considered in my blog