home

Sirota on the Supplemental: Why I Disagree

I consider David Sirota a good friend and a good progressive. Much more progressive than I across the board. He has written a piece supporting a Yes vote on the Iraq supplemental funding bill with which I profoundly disagree. But I am very glad David wrote the piece. David, alone amongst the proponents of this piece of legislation, has taken the objections some of us raise seriously and has attempted to respond to our concerns in detail.

For that I am grateful to David. One of my biggest concerns in this episode was the kneejerk attempts to shut down discussion of the merits of this bill. Too many bandied in misinformation, falsehoods and insults to the "idiot liberals' like myself. David has avoided this in his response. As I say, David is a friend, and I expect nothing less from him.

And yet he is wrong. I will explain why I think so on the other side.

David begins with the famous quote from Saul Alinsky:

“As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be,” wrote Saul Alinsky, one of the 20th Century’s most successful progressive leaders. “That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be - it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.”

On this we are in agreement David. I think your assumption that someone is advocating something other than this is your first grave mistake. It leads you to the mindset that any disagreement with your view is outside of these paramters. It colors your every thought. And it leads you to misinterpretations, misunderstandings and misstatements.

David continues:

With the House expected to vote this week on binding legislation to end the war in 2008, a group of Congress’s most distinguished progressive heroes is undecided about whether to vote yes or no. The indecision is entirely understandable. Democratic leaders have attached their binding legislation to a bill providing ongoing military funding, and many progressives understandably do not want to vote for a single dollar more for anything that could be construed as fueling the war.

This is a misstatement of the issue. Everyone understands that many single dollars more will be voted for the Debacle. The objections to the bill arise because it does not lead to an END of the Debacle. Again David construes any disagreement with his view as somehow not dealing with reality. It is he who is not dealing with the reality of how bad and how useless, indeed how HARMFUL this bill is.

David continues:

The question, then, is simple: Should these progressives vote yes and accept the congressional world as it is right now – a world filled with a unified Republican caucus that will do anything to continue the war indefinitely and a group of egotistical, pro-war Blue Dog Democrats who will do anything to lavish attention on themselves as supposedly “tough”? Or, should they view the congressional world as they wish it would be and vote no, sending the bill down to defeat?

Here begins the grave errors. The congressional world as it is now is precisely what DAVID is not accepting. He ignores the Congressional world where it is IMPOSSIBLE that Congress will not provide additional funding for the Iraq Debacle in September 2008, two months before the election.

More importantly, it is David who chooses to let the Democratic leadership off the hook. For it would be the Democratic leadership that decides that if this bill fails then something worse will come. What could be worse than this I ask?

David would say:

[Rep. David Obey's] calculation, though laid out inartfully in his now-famous “idiot liberals” tirade, is sound: He doesn’t have the votes to pass what congressional progressives say they want, which is a “fully funded withdrawal.”

Accepted. And? This is no reason to vote for THIS bill. Why should progressives vote for THIS bill David?

David continues:

Every vote that he may attract from a progressive Democrat for a bill cutting off funding for the war gets him double the “no” votes among both pro-war Blue Dogs and typical rank-and-file invertebrates who want to avoid the issue altogether.

This still is no reason to vote for this bill. Remember all that happens if the bill is defeated is the bill is defeated. The world does not end. Bush does not attack Iran. The Progressive Caucus is not obliterated. What is the reason for voting for THIS bill David?

Finally David decides to discuss THIS bill:

Here are the facts: The Iraq supplemental bill begins redeploying troops by March 2008, and completes a full withdrawal by September 2008. You can label the bill anything you like. For all I care, you can label it the Iraq War Indefinite Continuation Act and Fox News can run slick graphics cheering on the legislation as the greatest escalation of militarism since Genghis Khan. But as long as that language is in there and the bill passes, then at the end of the day, real, binding power has been wielded to end the war.

This would be the argument for the bill. And it is precisely why David's argument utterly fails. The bill DOES NOT "begin[] redeploying troops by March 2008." Bush will certify he needs to keep them there for national security reasons. This is simply not true David. And since it is not true, your argument is flawed. Fatally so.

The bill does NOT "complete[] a full withdrawal by September 2008." This is false. The bill funds through September 2008 and on that date, in THE REAL CONGRESS THAT EXISTS TODAY, ADDITIONAL FUNDING will be voted "FOR THE TROOPS" two months before an election.

Only wishful thinking can imagine anything else happening. Indeed, Dem staffers argue that the plan is to go to court!!!!! You know better than this David. Your argument is a house of cards. This bill is a complete and utter failure. It does nothing to stop the war. It is why PRAGMATISTS and PROGRESSIVES who want the war to end MUST vote against it.

Now, we can see that the bill itself is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE bill. But maybe the alternative is worse.

David argues:

THE ALTERNATIVES: A “CLEAN” WAR FUNDING BILL

When employing brinksmanship as remaining undecided on such a close vote does, any lawmaker should game out what they legitimately think will happen. So let’s objectively walk through the two scenarios.

Consider progressives voting yes, and the bill passing. It will be conferenced with the Senate’s bill, that may end up having even stronger deadline language in it already.

This is not realisitc in my opinion. The bill will only get WEAKER from here. Not stronger. David is simply unrealistic now. As Homer said to Marge,"now who's being naive?"

David's unlikely scenario continues:

That suggests the conference report will include at least as strongly anti-war binding language as was originally voted on in the House, and that such binding language will be forwarded on to the White House. President Bush will be forced to sign a bill ending the war, or veto a bill and be blamed for refusing to fund the troops.

This is more wishful thinking. The "strong language" is likely to be gone in order to overcome the GOP power of filibuster in the Senate. An even WEAKER bill will emerge. And if it does not, Bush will veto. And who gets blamed for it is anyone's guess. But this mealy mouthed nonsense of a bill is not anything to feel you can campaign on.

David continues:

The former is a positive legislative scenario for antiwar progressives, because it cements legally binding legislation to end the war.

It does not as it exists now. It certainly will not after McConnelll gets through with it. And if it did, Bush would veto it.

Now David scenarios out a No vote:

Consider progressives voting no, and the bill failing. At that point, President Bush would use the bully pulpit to echo the Fox News talking point that Democrats’ incompetence and division is supposedly leaving troops in the field without the resources they need.

This is not sound from David. You see, in David's construct, when Bush has a powerful bully pulpit is only if the vote FAILS, with GOP votes I might add. If it passes, Bush is a bumbling fool who can't even talk. But if it fails, he is Reagan come back to life. This is just nonsense.

Now is when David really infuriates:

The ascension of the Spineless Caucus would likely commence, with people like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) demanding Democrats move a “clean” supplemental bill – one that is stripped of the binding antiwar language. This move will be made because a panicked Pelosi, under pressure for supposedly “leaving troops in the lurch,” will invariably calculate that there is a much bigger pool of pro-war Republican “yes” votes to attract to a pro-war bill than new antiwar progressive “yes” votes to attract to an even stronger antiwar bill.

These are the same people that will make THIS bill, a travesty already, even weaker when the Senate is pressured by the GOP and with filibuster! David, like Bush, these weak kneed Dems have to be confronted sometime. And like Bush, it is best to confront them ON THIS GROUND.

"Are you for Bush's Iraq debacle or against?" is the question to be presented. And it is a question best presented as far away from the election as possible. Fight them on this NOW David. You let them win now on Iraq and they will have won it forever.

Clearly, this is just a best guess and there's always the possibility for something else to happen. But I submit that this is about the best, most informed guess we can make at this point.

No David, this is NOT a best guess, it is a sheer wishful thinking you have built. Hope is not a plan. I thank you for your efforts. Since nothing better exposes how bad this bill is than playing out the scenario as you have. The wishful thinking involved in your story is the most effective condemnation of this bill that anyone could muster.

If you think Sirota has spun a convincing story of how this will play out then by all means, vote yes. But, if like me, you are certain David's scenario is sheer fantasy then you should be resolved in opposing this terrible terrible bill.

< First Circuit Tosses Republican Phone Jammer's Conviction | Memo From the Defense Bar >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The Republicans understood (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:27:24 PM EST
    what Conference did to a bill, which is why they always made sure that the House version was as strong as possible.

    True; which is why we had no comprehensive... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by cal11 voter on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:03:49 PM EST
    immigration bill last year.  The Repub right did not want one.

    Parent
    Boy. . . (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:36:14 PM EST
    with friends like this. . .

    It was rather harsh (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:47:15 PM EST
    I've changed some of the language.

    Parent
    To David Sirota (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by leoncarre on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:55:50 PM EST
    Say what??

    •  the war on iraq is a failure... let's continue that failure for another 18 months
    •  the Iraqis want us out... but lets stay on "for their own good"
    •  the american people want us out... but let's stay the course and hope conditions improve
    •  we can't take care of our returning soldiers... so lets send more soldiers in
    •  the democrats were elected on the mandate to end the war in iraq... so lets stay on with no end in sight, hoping for better days
    •  we can't account for the billions gone so far for this war... so lets send a few more billion
    •  the iraq supplemental is not what we want... so lets vote for it

    progressive or regressive?


    I just see no positves in this (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:59:34 PM EST
    meanwhile the progressive dems are being bullied (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by leoncarre on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:12:13 PM EST
    California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey said that many of their liberal colleagues were caving under pressure from Democratic leaders who, according to at least one congressman, have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district.

    buying votes

    Democratic leaders have also added billions in funds not related to wartime spending in a bid for more support.

    That additional money was attractive for at least one lawmaker, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), an Out of Iraq Caucus member. His spokeswoman, Danielle Langone, cited $400 million for a one-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

    "That's pretty vital for our district, so we'll be voting for the bill," Langone said..

    jesus

    One congressman, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from leaders, bristled at how aggressively he was being pressured to vote for the bill, singling out Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) as especially forceful.

    "I really resent this," the lawmaker said. "Rahm Emanuel told us a vote against this bill is a vote to give the Republicans victory."

    The congressman also noted that Democratic leaders had "made clear" to him that they might yank funding requests he had made for projects in his district if he did not support the measure..

    moveon really made an impression

    A jovial Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger went up to fellow Maryland Rep. Albert Wynn as he sat off the floor with a reporter and told Wynn that a vote against the bill was a vote for Republican victory. He waved a copy of the MoveOn.org press release backing the measure.

    "Have you seen this?" Ruppersberger asked.

    "Yeah, who did that?" replied Wynn, a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus..politico

    and the very limit is to threaten Barbara Lee with loss of her seat

    Thinly veiled if indirect threats of lost committee slots floated out of a closed-door meeting last week. Lee holds a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee, which doles out spending..SFGate


    Parent
    Very ugly stuff (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:20:31 PM EST
    Any Blue Dogs being strong armed?

    Parent
    whip it (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by leoncarre on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:34:14 PM EST
    California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey said that many of their liberal colleagues were caving under pressure from Democratic leaders who, according to at least one congressman, have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district.

    They also cited MoveOn.org's endorsement of the measure Monday as a blow to their efforts.

    "This is the process: people who feel strongly about this issue hold out as long as they can," said Waters. "A lot of pressure comes to bear and they can't hold up under the pressure."

    Waters said that she and other opponents of the spending measure had entered the weekend with 20 to 25 members on their side but that they had suffered "a lot of damage" as Democratic leaders aggressively urged members to support the bill.

    Vowing to step up her efforts to hold the opposition, Waters said it was clear that Democratic leaders were mounting an all-out whip effort beyond the earlier informal surveying by Democratic Whip James Clyburn (S.C.).

    "This is a vote of conscience," Waters said. "Jim Clyburn said he was doing an assessment, so that's what I was doing. Now that he's whipping, I'm going to start whipping."

    Clyburn disputed her assertion. "That's not what she told me," he said. "I beg to differ that there's anybody whipping against this bill."
    politico

    Democratic leaders also were trying to stop defections from conservative Blue Dogs worried that the bill sets too many conditions for generals on the battlefield and includes too much non-war spending.

    Several Blue Dog Coalition members in the House are opposed to the bill, including Jim Marshall of Georgia. Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota, the group's whip, predicted that the number of its members voting against the measure would be in the "single digits."CQ




    Parent
    Pelosi puts the screws to Lee (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by leoncarre on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:00:37 PM EST
    Clyburn may not be taking action against his team members, but other party leaders almost certainly will, aides said yesterday. Pelosi plans to speak to Lewis as soon as possible, if not to win his vote, at least to secure his silence. The speaker held pointed discussions this week with the leaders of the Appropriations Committee, making it clear that she has the power to determine the popular panel's membership. That was a clear indication that she might move against Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.), an antiwar activist and the only Democrat to vote against the war spending bill in committee last week.

    Washington Post

    On another note, your posts at Talk Left are being read by a member of the House of Representatives who found your name (BTD at TL) at the top of the list Out of Iraq Bloggers' Caucus on Drawing the Line, so smile pretty for the camera!!

    Parent

    Reality can be so hard to ascertain. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cal11 voter on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:00:58 PM EST
    Reality tells me the legislation will only be weakened as the funding battle heads to the Senate.

    History tellls us this (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:06:29 PM EST
    Certainly Dems in the Senate did this when they were in the minority.

    Parent
    What's the rush? (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:02:55 PM EST
    If militarytracy's correct that already appropriated funds run through September, let things sit for a bit and see how many Republicans sour on the War in the next few months.

    Correct (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:05:41 PM EST
    What's the rush?

    Parent
    With Al Gore on the hill today (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:15:30 PM EST
    I'm reminded of the CBC trying to object to the counting of Florida's Electoral votes in 2000. If we'd had some party unity, the Senate could have sustained one of those objections, and perhaps some deal could have been worked out in the election by delegation that would have ensued in the House (though Bush probably would have won in the end).

    On Second Consideration (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:33:11 PM EST
    The House would have elected Bush and the Senate Lieberman. . .

    Parent
    Waters is a hero (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by vcmvo2 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:03:39 PM EST
    But this is where the problem lies
    a group of egotistical, pro-war Blue Dog Democrats who will do anything to lavish attention on themselves as supposedly "tough"?

    I just don't understand these blue dogs: being conservative is one thing; being stupid is another. Are they all Liebermans? Sheese!

    the war is illegal, a war crime. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Compound F on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:34:52 PM EST
    Bush lost the war.  Bush won't properly support the troops, but rather abuses them.  The war is mind-numbingly expensive.  A full regional conflagration is a real potential outcome.  The public has turned against the war, and gave Congress a fresh mandate to stop the incompetence.  Bush is going to be up to his waist in alligators as Congress hands out subpoenas.  There's no hurry to pass ANY legislation at this time.  Big Tent should consider cross-posting this piece in particular, because it's pretty clear that no Democrat needs to support THIS piece of legislation.

    Parent
    The alternative plans (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by leoncarre on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:43:43 PM EST
    About two dozen House members auditioned their plans Tuesday for ending or pursuing the Iraq war before the Foreign Affairs Committee.

    The committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., calculated that of the Democratic bills presented Tuesday, 11 called for rapid withdrawal from Iraq, 14 would "micro-manage military policy,'' others dealt with improved oversight for the reconstruction effort. The only bill that met with her approval happened to be the only one presented by a Republican, Rep. Steve King of Iowa

    •  King:  the "United States is committed to victory in the global war on terrorism and on the Iraq battlefield,'' is based on King's belief that it is unconstitutional for Congress to interfere with Bush's commander in chief powers with troops on the battlefield

    •  Lantos:  Iraq Reconstruction Improvement Act, which he said was aimed at cleaning up "gross corruption and massive American and Iraqi bureaucratic confusion

    •  Thompson: main Senate sponsor is presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., calls for a phased withdrawal of the estimated 160,000 U.S. forces in Iraq to begin by May 1. All combat brigades would be gone by March 31, 2008. Training of Iraqi forces would be intensified and economic aid to rebuild Iraq would be tied to the Baghdad government kicking in more money and meeting goals for reducing violence.

    •  Thompson: calls for the Bush administration to give Congress more information about how U.S. money is being spent in Iraq.

    •  Lee & Woolsey:  Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, offered their bills for speedy withdrawals and a U.S. commitment not to establish permanent bases in Iraq.

    •  Tauscher:  nullify the October 2002 congressional authorization for Bush to use force in Iraq. That would require the secretary of defense to submit a plan for a phased withdrawal.

    •  Farr:  a two-sentence bill revoking the authorization and requiring a withdrawal.

    SFGate

    I'm trying to remember "rules." (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by walt on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:06:16 PM EST
    With the House parliamentary procedures, it seems to me that any representative who abstains will change the ratio of the 218/435.  Pelosi & Hoyer can whip 233 votes at best which is maximum Democrats.

    If 34 of the Out of Iraq caucus stays away or votes "present," it seems that the 201 rethuglicans can kill the bill.  Then, none of the 34 are even on record about this foolish legislation.  It's just DOA.  And to the general public, Bu$hInc's GOoPerz will appear to be the traitors who cut off the funding to the troops.

    And it doesn't go to mark-up or conference committee.

    This is parallel to BigTent's idea that the congress just not vote out any appropriations bills for the War.  It's the essence of passive resistance--do nothing.

    "No fight, no blame."-----Lao Tze

    Moveon's decision is based upon flawed data (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:11:48 AM EST
    Per this article, which lays out the opinion. This line sums it up:

    The real news is that 96% of MoveOn's huge list did not vote with them to support the Pelosi bill. When MoveOn says 84.6% of their members chose Pelosi's bill, they mean 86.4% of the measly four percent of their members who bothered to open their email and respond.

    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Compound F on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:55:08 AM EST
    What a terrible method of sampling.  The ones who responded: Ex post facto errors to the max.

    Parent
    Good analysis of the flaws in the 'Yes' argument (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:43:27 AM EST
    I fully agree with it. I'd also add these points:

    • If members of the progressive caucus hold together like the Blue Dogs do, by their greater numbers THEY will be the ones controlling the direction of compromise, not the Blue Dogs.

    • If progressives hold out as a bloc and vote "No" on bills that don't defund the war, they can keep them from passing. Strategic gridlock - passing no funding bill at all - is de facto defunding.

    • If the goal is actually to end the war (as opposed to setting out the battle lines on the issue for 2008), "binding legislation" that forces Dems to vote on further supplemental funding right before the election is useless. They're not going to vote against it and it's not going to end the war. They should be clear about what their goal really is and act accordingly, because they're not fooling anyone on this but themselves.

    • Even if the Dem leadership is stupid enough to move a "clean" supplemental bill, and not just playing chicken with the progressive caucus, then it's still best for progressives to hang tough. That's the way they become the powerful swing caucus that must be courted, instead of letting the Blue Dogs be the ones that set the agenda.

    • As a matter of terminology, it doesn't make sense to set a date to end a war. Dems should be talking about specifying a date for ending the OCCUPATION.

    David's update about the House bill being watered down in conference committee completely negates his whole argument. I'm surprised he didn't just give up and say "Oh never mind," at that point. Clearly, the best strategy for progressives on this issue - morally and tactically - is to vote "No". The progressive caucus has the numbers to sway views in their direction. They should do so. They need to show the misguided Dem leadership the way on this.

    Yep (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:54:51 AM EST
    "Now who's being naive?" (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:22:19 AM EST
    As Homer said to Marge,"now who's being naive?"

    Didn't Michael Corleone say this to Kay? I believe the provocative line was something like:

    Senators and Presidents don't have people killed.



    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:54:02 AM EST
    The Simpson's spoofed it.

    I liked the spoof version better.

    BTW, leave the gun. Take the cannolis.

    Parent

    D'oh (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:06:43 AM EST
    I should have known better.
    (Who'm I tryin' t'impress?)

    Parent
    Demi, I love you (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:41:07 AM EST
    But don't ever go against the Talk Left family again . . .

    Parent
    I thought that David was on the money (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:40:17 AM EST
    until I found out more about the bill.  It has no teeth and it even terrifies me.  Because of where I have landed on the LIFE game board right now I have witnessed when the American people get riled up about Iraq and start to want facts on the situation.  It is usually when America has had a day of heavy losses.  Because Iraq has so many days of heavy civilian losses that has ceased to be a wake up shake up moment.  It would be so easy for us though to have another Lima Company day, in fact I think it is only a matter of time until we do the way things are going. I don't want to be standing there holding the toothless bag of fluff when Americans start asking a few hard questions about the bill that the Dems put through.  I really don't even want to give "W" anymore funds for this fiasco that I don't fully understand what they will be used for.  Is he going to send every soldier out the door from here on out in "Dragonskin" body armor?  Fine, write that in there and I'm sure America as a whole couldn't wait to sign that!  Are we going to start turning out Cougars instead of unarmored Humvees and that's going to cost a lot more, then write it up!  Is a Bipartisan panel going to decide when the benchmarks have been met that will have us out of there around the end of 2008, and if they aren't met how many troops are we going to start pulling out within what time frames?  Great, where do I sign?

    I agree, Big TD. Well said. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by fafnir on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    I share David's view on many issues, but here is where I respectfully part ways. I cannot endorse this disastrous bill, because it betrays the mandate for Democrats to act responsibly to end the occupation as soon as possible.