Not Trusting Dems on Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:34:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At daily kos, BarbinMd questions why Congressional Dems place any trust in Bush on Iraq:

As House Democrats continue to hammer out the details of a toothless supplemental funding bill for Iraq, where the enforcement of benchmarks is left in the hands of George Bush, perhaps they should think about what his word means.

Barb is obviously right, of course, but we are fast approaching a point where we need to ask why we should place any trust in the House Dems. They simply will not do what must be done to even put themselves in position to stop the Iraq Debacle sometime in the future. And yes, in the end, it will require not funding the Debacle after a date certain.

I've written this too many times to count, but one more time for the hard of head:

Many ask 'so what is a Democratic Congress to do?' With Mitch McConnell promising filibusters to all attempts to revoke the Iraq AUMF, cap troop levels and to cut funding for the Iraq Debacle, what is it I am asking of the Democratic Congress.

Let me explain again - 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 that 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 politcal battle too.

Understand this, if you want to end the Iraq Debacle, this is the only way until Bush is not President. If you are not for this approach for ending the war, tell me what you do support. I think this is the only way. And if you shy away from the only way to end the Debacle, then you really are not for ending it are you?

The Dem House Leadership is not really for ending the Debacle. The are for SAYING they are for ending it. And that is something altogether different. Altogether reprehensible. Altogether stupid.

< The Silent Senator (and Rep.) From New Mexico | Shelf Life Expired >

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.

Not Trusting Dems on Iraq | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

How do we. .. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:48:31 PM EST

convince leadership to do what you propose?

How do we convince (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:54:10 PM EST

Dem activists and "progressive" blogs like Daily Kos and MYDD that Dems are not standing up on this and need to be convinced to do what needs to be done? How do we get Dem activists and "progressive" blogs to stand up and care about Iraq? At least as much as they care about Presidential debates in Neevada next August?

We will never convince them, we can "persuade" them that their political interests require they do it.

Pressure. It is all they understand. They are pols after all.


: Well, that's what I've come to (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by andgarden on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:04:26 PM EST

What you propose is reall the un-impeachment, because as you say, if we choose to fight it, the default option is to win. That is, if we can find 218 votes to include a funding deadline in the budget.

The Senate will stop ANY plan (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by lilybart on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:02:59 PM EST

and Bush will veto any plan, ANY PLAN they come up with. So, what exactly can they do?

They should make a definitive statement to GET OUT now, since it will never pass anyway.

I suspect that they are actually trying to pass a bill that has some chance of being signed. That is a fool's errand, but I guess that is the best we can do.

My opinion is that we should do nothing except hold hearings about the missing billions and other issues. The REPS have to own this whole war. DEMS should not get involved since they cannot stop it no matter what they do.

Those like the author of this blog who think that the DEMS are not doing enough, should think hard about whether there is anything they can do at all.

There Seems To Be A Lot Of Confusion (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by MO Blue on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 05:16:13 PM EST

or disagreement on the blogs on exactly what the Blue Dog supplemental funding bill for Iraq will actually accomplish. This from Dkos is one example:

I don't care how we get out at this point--I just want out as fast as possible. We have political reality to consider. Congressional Dems are not one person, and they have vastly different constituencies to please.
IMO this proposal is far better than nothing.

There seems to be a disconnect between the desire to get out ASAP and the realization that this bill will probably not achieve that objective.

Then you get the "What part of "We don't have the votes in the House to pass a better bill." are you too stupid to understand."

Of course from my POV it's "What part of if "ALL House Dems voted for a better bill we would have one." don't you understand. And if some Dems continue to publicly state that they stopped more aggressive action, our party now owns part of the responsibility for the continuation of the occupation.

I agree with you BTD but a significant part of the community either doesn't agree or doesn't want to agree that the Blue Dog bill will have no impact on our exiting Iraq.

OK, I'm not that smart (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Coldblue on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 06:49:28 PM EST

so I'll need to be edumacated here a bit.

Can amendments be added to the supplemental?

Of course (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:31:49 PM EST

if the Leadership allowss it.

Due respect, that is irrelevantq to my point.


Thanks (none / 0) (#12)
by Coldblue on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:43:09 PM EST

I'm trying to understand your strategy, and I think you are on the right path.

However it appears that everyone is focusing on the Democrats when we really should be boxing in the Republicans to get the results we desire.

Just suppose that the Democrats proposed legislation that fully funded the war only if the Bush tax cuts were repealed to pay for the funding? Do you see where I'm going?


Boxing in the Republicans? (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:51:54 PM EST

Dems and prgressives boxing in Republicans?

How?


Box them in (none / 0) (#14)
by Coldblue on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:00:11 PM EST

by making them choose between supporting the war or protecting their benefactors.


: They will support the war (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:55:22 PM EST

Theyh have never done anything else.

Our Dems won't even engage the rhetorical (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by prairiefire on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 07:11:02 PM EST

battle at this point, even with the political winds blowing a hurricane at their backs. Extremely disappointing, but you are absolutely right that it won't get better if we don't get downright pushy about insisting on better.

So - the BlueDogs (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by annefrank on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:03:53 PM EST

want soldiers to continue dying for oil indefinitely? Dems have 7 caucuses of felines to herd but the middle east has many more "caucuses" willing to fight the Great Satan in Iraq.

Is Bush asking for $100B now (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by annefrank on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:06:41 PM EST

and $150B later this year?

Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by yetimonk on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:07:38 PM EST

I couldn't agree more.

Big Tent is wrong about the progressive blogs. (none / 0) (#4)
by lilybart on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:04:07 PM EST

THIS IS NOT TRUE