Does Anyone Want The Troops Out of The Iraq Debacle?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:36:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ezra Klein and Ady Barkan wonder why Dem Senate Leader Reid does not go to the mattresses for Sen. Webb's amendment for resting troops:

Harry Reid should bring the amendment up for consideration in September, and he should make clear that he's not going to table it. If he demands that the bill get an up-or-down vote and sticks to his guns, Reid will almost surely emerge victorious. Why? First off, the Webb amendment is exceptionally popular. Republicans can't seriously oppose more rest and recuperation time for soldiers and marines. They'll say that Congress shouldn't micro-manage the war, but with many troops on their third tour in Iraq, that argument doesn't carry much weight. Second, because the vote was so close last time, at the outset of this debate the outcome would be in sincere doubt. Add to that the fact that such Very Serious Republicans as John Warner and Dick Lugar have long billed September as the moment of truth regarding Bush's surge, they may finally (with some pushing) feel the need to vote against the president, and the Webb amendment offers the perfect "non-defeat" bill on which to do it. All of this adds real uncertainty -- which constitutes exactly the drama that the press loves. If Reid can keep the floor debate going for 3 or 4 days, the excitement will only build -- if the Senate is deadlocked over the fate of thousands of U.S. soldiers, America will tune in.

Assuming each of these very dubious assumptions is true, I think each and every one is NOT true, then what? Why the least suspenseful veto in history will occur. I have to ask this question - is anyone interested in ACTUALLY getting the troops out of the Iraq Debacle? Because if they do they need to come to grips with the fact that there is only one way to do it - by not funding it after a date certain. More.

Which brings me back to my refrain:

This is a preemptive post, because I am positive that the naysayers 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.

< Who Were the Boos For? | Working Hard And Playing By The Rules >

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.

Does Anyone Want The Troops Out of The Iraq Debacle? | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Can I have both? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:38:32 AM EST

Is it possible to have the Webb amendment and no funding? Probably not huh? The soldiers are so tired and they are being abused by the combat tours being shoved down their throats without regard for their need to heal and care for themselves as well as serve. The Webb amendment is the right thing to do and so is defunding the Iraq debacle. If we defund though we won't need the Webb amendment, if we don't get defunding and also lose the Webb amendment..........FRICK! You know what though, the Webb amendment sort of sucks because it has been long established that a healthy deployment ratio is 2:1 deployed verses homeside. The Webb amendment being about troop rest is sort of mendacious and is only a struggle for not being totally insane with the use of our troops alongside groveling for scraps.....sigh.....

: I am not against the Webb bill (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:49:04 AM EST

But Bush is.
To get the Webb bill passed you need a veto proff majority. You'll never get it.
But by all means try.
The NOT funding option is a terrible approach, except all the others are worse. Why? Because only not funding can work with only Dem support in the House.

"Names of the Dead": Yesterday's NYT (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by oculus on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:32:39 PM EST

list, comprised of 10 names, included six with Latino surnames. Very young, of course. A most unequal burden.

I've mostly given up (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:44:46 AM EST

it's clear to me that Reid and Pelosi don't have the mettle to stand up to Bush.

: I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Al on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:09:29 AM EST

It would seem that way, but it doesn't make sense. Bush has record disapproval rates, and the Democrats earned majority in Congress thanks to the Iraq protest vote, so what do they have to be afraid of?
I think something else must be going on, but I can't fathom what.

: I think they have the :mettle: (none / 0) (#4)
by Edger on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:25:57 AM EST

But that they do not want to stand up to anyone except the American people, and the world.

Nearly everybody, I think... (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:23:56 AM EST

...wants the troops out, and wants the Iraq Debacle ended.

Except Pelosi and Reid and Bush and the neocons and the military industrial complex.

Pelosi and Reid are complicit, I think.

The believe, as the neocons do, in the whole war on terror mythology, that it is the only way to save America from destruction.

Or that it is the way to maintain power.

: To clarify (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:37:38 AM EST

They don't believe it.
They believe in it, as a manipulatory construction.

Hilarious (none / 0) (#5)
by squeaky on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:26:18 AM EST

go to the mattresses

Not sure if that was intentional. In any case very funny mixed metaphor.

They're selling postcards of the hanging (none / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:32:07 AM EST

They're painting the passports brown...