Phony Reed-Levin Iraq Bill Defeated In Senate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:42:45 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Good riddance!. This article is false:

The Senate rejected legislation Friday that would have ordered most U.S. troops home from Iraq in nine months, culminating a losing week for Democrats who failed to push through any anti-war proposal. The vote, 47-47, fell 13 votes short of the 60 needed to pass.

(Emphasis supplied.) The bill would NOT have ordered any troops out of Iraq. It was not binding on the President. Only funding restrictions bind the President

Senator Dodd voted against the bill for the right reasons:

This bill (Levin-Reed) will not stop this President from continuing to wage this war. While a firm deadline is necessary, it is not sufficient without it also being enforceable through the power of the purse. Given this President's loyalty to his own failed policy, it is clear to me that anything short of firm, enforceable deadline that forces his hand will only serve to perpetuate our involvement in this civil war. I will only vote to fully fund the complete redeployment of our troops out of Iraq."

(Emphasis supplied.) I repeat my question, is Chris Dodd the only person in the Senate who understands this? Oh by the way, the Democrats have lost NOTHING yet on Iraq. They will only lose if they PASS a bill that funds the war without establishing a date certain for ending funding.

Update [2007-9-21 12:13:12 by Big Tent Democrat]: There is an argument made that this was not a toothless bill:

Just to clarify, this was not a toothless, non-binding "pretty please" measure. It was quite clear. From the text:
Deadline for Commencement of Reduction. — The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

I have gone through this issue before, but the basic point is the Secretary of Defense is part of the Executive Branch and the President is the Commander in Chief. IF we go to war is for the Congress to decide. HOW to run a war is the province of the President. Whether the war is funded and what tasks are funded is the province of the Congress. The Spending Power is what the President is forced to respect.

< Rudy Proposes To Expand NATO To Include Israel | Afraid Of A Filibuster? >

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.

Phony Reed-Levin Iraq Bill Defeated In Senate | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I've been listening to Dodd lately (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Donna Z on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:47:01 AM EST

He's making the most sense on many issues these days.

Repeating (1.00 / 3) (#2)
by koshembos on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 11:54:30 AM EST

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone thinks that Bush will stop the war for lack of funding.

He'll find an extra-constitutional way to get the money.

: Prove it (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:01:09 PM EST

: Repeating (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:01:45 PM EST

What extra-constitutional way?
You are just making it up.

: And even if he could which he can't, so? (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 09:20:50 PM EST

That justifies or excuses paying for it exactly how?

Polls and polls (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:32:19 PM EST

Question: Do you think the U.S. should or should not set a timetable for when troops will be withdrawn from Iraq."
Only 13 percent of the respondents are in favor of a timetable. This is far smaller than the 39 percent who want our troops to stay in Iraq until stabilization, and far smaller than the 54 percent who prefer a soon-as-possible withdrawal. It means that only a minority of both groups advocate a timetable. Even if all 13 percent fall into the second group, it means that more than three-quarters of those who want a soon-as-possible withdrawal don't want a timetable.

Maybe the Demos are getting smart?

shoddy (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by roy on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:03:05 PM EST

Taking the whole writeup at face value, it's only point is that there's some fuzziness in measuring how and when people want the troops withdrawn. That doesn't contradict -- or even address -- the polls' findings that the bulk of the people want them withdrawn pretty darn soon.

The part you quote is just plain wrong. The 13% all come from those who want to keep troops in Iraq. See question 50. Those who want to leave ASAP weren't asked a "timetable" question.


roy (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 08:28:09 AM EST

The same article made this point:

Andrew Kohut, President of the Pew Research Center, was interviewed on last night's PBS NewsHour. He recounted the results of an opinion poll taken after General Petraeus' and Ambassador Crocker's appearances on Capitol Hill. That poll showed that 54 percent of Americans want our troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible, while 39 percent want to "stay the course."
The exact wording of the question that elicited this response is as follows:
"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"
The wording of this question implicitly assumes that the situation in Iraq has not yet been "stabilized." According to the General's and the Ambassador's testimonies,
however, the situation has been stabilized, as the military and political situations are no longer deteriorating. How, then, could a respondent who gives credence to their testimonies answer this question?
Another problem with the question is the phrase "as soon as possible." Everyone should favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible; the disagreement is over the criteria that need to be met for the possibility to become reality.

: Language is a fickly thing (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by roy on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 11:25:01 AM EST

That definition of "stabilized" is the sort of hyper-literal pedantic nit-pickery which I admire very much, but I doubt it was in play for people answering the question. A steady rate of terrorism and violent death is not what most people call "stable". In context, the key thing is the contrast between "until the situation has stabilized" and "as soon as possible". 54% said that soonness and/or possibility are more important.
And of course there's disagreement over when and what "as soon as possible" means, but if the words are sensical it's a much lower standard than "until the situation has stabilized". Suggesting that ASAP might be equivalent to or stricter than the alternative isn't pedantic, it's bizarre.
It's interesting, though, that the writer insists on a hyper-literal definition of "stabilize" and a hand-wavey one for "as soon as possible". Being a bit selective, isn't he?

Eh. So long as they're not voting (none / 0) (#1)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 11:44:34 AM EST

FOR funding, I don't see the harm in voting for weaker-than-preferable withdrawal provisions.

But, this is making the case that funding cutoff are the only answer, becaues it's last resort time.

: Well (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:02:49 PM EST

A fake "solution" would be a problem.
In any event, it is now clear that there is only one way to do this.
To me it was always clear.