home

Saying It Does Not Make It So: The Iraq Supplemental Is NOT A First Step To Ending The Debacle

Update [2007-3-22 20:28:52 by Big Tent Democrat]: And now those who advocate for this bill will have their theory tested:

Four prominent liberal Democrats said Thursday they have given House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) the support she needs to pass the $124 billion wartime spending bill, even though they remain steadfastly opposed to any additional funding for the war.

All right all you proponents of this bill, what is the famous "next step" for this strategy? As Johnny Friendly says in "On the Waterfront," "you want him, you got 'em." What now?

Dem speaker after Dem speaker has defensively said the Iraq supplemental bill is "just a first step." At Daily Kos, Miss Laura repeats this talking point without examining whether it is is true or not:

The House of Representatives today began debate on the Iraq supplemental funding bill. . . . [T]oday the question comes down to yes or no on this bill, which does, for the first time, set a withdrawal deadline. . . . MoveOn expressed support for this bill, at least as a "first concrete step to ending the war." . . .

I say to her, saying it is a first step don't make it so. Indeed, by its own terms, it should NOT be so. It should be a last step setting a date certain for total withdrawal. That Miss Laura argues that it is a first step is the evidence that indeed the date certain is not so certain.

This bill is clearly NOT designed to be a first step. It is designed, to give them credit, as a LAST step, one that ends the war in September 2008, as Peter DeFazio argued in the debate today.

Indeed, these contradictory claims are indicative of what a terrible mess this bill is. No one really believes this bill would end the war. No one really believes the Congress will NOT vote more funds for the Debacle in September 2008, two months before an election. No one believes that Bush will not waive the so called benchmarks in the bill. The bill is intended as a political statement, to be used in the 2008 elections. No one can seriously argue this is intended to actually end the war. And to her credit, Miss LAura does not either. So does this bill help us to end the war? I think it clearly does not. I have stated why in my many posts.

Miss Laura argues for the bill, saying:

Let's be clear. This week's bill would be stronger without the Blue Dogs' fear of looking weak or of facing the eternal BS accusation of not supporting the troops. Blame for that must laid at their feet - and if progressives join them in sinking this bill, the Blue Dogs will avoid that deserved anger from House leadership and from the country.

Huh? The Blue Dogs are FOR this bill!! They avoided the blame already when the Dem leadership caved in to their demands. How will they be blamed if the bill is passed? This makes no sense.

Miss Laura continues:

Progressives and their supporters should look to the next step - to that vote on the Murtha plan or the Defense Appropriations Bill language Sirota suggests - which is more likely to come if they emerge from this vote strengthened within the Democratic caucus rather than dragged down with the Blue Dogs. That is how we move concretely toward ending the war.

Progressives strengthened? How? Dragged down with the Blue Dogs? They won!!! They got the concessions they wanted!!

Moreover, what next step? THIS BILL is what's left of the Murtha Plan. There is no other Murtha Plan. The progressives emerge from this process utterly defanged. They have now been revealed to be utterly powerless. They have been forced to accept an unacceptable bill. The Blue Dogs won Miss Laura. This is much more their bill than anyone elses. This argument simply makes no sense.

Miss Laura continues:

[T]he progressives held on to significant victories and . . . the next bill would be far weaker. If this bill does not pass, it is the Blue Dogs' fear that wins, not the progressives' conscience. . .

Again, the Blue Dogs' fear is what made this bill. This is THEIR bill. What victories did the progressives gain here?

In addition, why would the next bill be weaker? Bowers and Sirota say this and I see that as confirmation that the Dem leadership, in their eyes, is going to roll over in September 2008 as well. If they can't stand strong NOW, how can we expect them to in September 2008? There is a disconnect with reality un the advocacy of this terrible bill that is hard to understand. Must we support the Dem leadership? Is that the message the Netroots is sending. I reject that DC Establishment Beltway message.

Other than what I highlight above, Miss Laura's piece is largely a rehash of pieces by Chris Bowers, which I criticized here and David Sirota, which I criticized here. There has been no substantive response to my critiques. So I have to nothing to add to those pieces.

Everyone knows this bill is a policy failure. The argument now is that we should not make this a political failure. I agree. Passing the bill would be a political failure, when it matters, two months before the next election, when Dems will cave in yet again, as any realist must see.

This bill must be defeated. The House Dems need to be saved from themselves.

< The Iraq Supplemental Funding Debate Thread 2 | DEA Has a Great Week >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    woolsey just caved (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by leoncarre on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:49:07 PM EST
    change hers to a yes vote

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:52:37 PM EST
    We stand alone.

    Parent
    but (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by leoncarre on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:02:50 PM EST
    should it pass and Bush veto, what would be the next step, a weaker bill, or a stronger one?

    Parent
    Weaker (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:11:12 PM EST
    who will draft it and will it come to vote (none / 0) (#11)
    by leoncarre on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:16:18 PM EST
    how will it play out?

    Parent
    Blue Dogs of course (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:23:39 PM EST
    They run the House don't you know.

    Parent
    what's the time frame? (none / 0) (#20)
    by leoncarre on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:27:16 PM EST
    how long do we have?

    Parent
    For what? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:46:49 PM EST
    how long (none / 0) (#61)
    by leoncarre on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    when will bush veto?
    how long till the redrafting?
    who will redraft?
    how long till ratification?

    Parent
    Why (none / 0) (#32)
    by taylormattd on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:39:34 PM EST
    are you so sure about the next step being a weaker bill?

    Parent
    Is this accurate? What source? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:10:12 PM EST
    C Span (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by leoncarre on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:16:49 PM EST
    her words

    Parent
    If I heard her correctly on TV (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:11:44 PM EST
    I would be the source. Did I hear wrong?

    Parent
    I'm just asking? I don't know? n/t (none / 0) (#10)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:15:13 PM EST
    "Both parties support the occupation" (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by fairleft on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:54:55 PM EST
    Whatever the hopes for this bill may be, with its fake deadlines and inch-high 'roadblocks, that is the message to the massive antiwar base of the Democratic Party. It's a disaster for turnout and activism next year.

    I don't believe that Dems (4.50 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:11:11 PM EST
    support the occupation.  This just isn't their mess though and they think they have found a way to benefit from it, at the expense of others though.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by roboleftalk on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:56:42 PM EST
    I shouldn't say it, but what I hate most about the piece is its rather patronizing and paternalistic quality: that its purpose seems to be to state the "progressives" or netroots view on the bill--through the invocation of the would-be policy insiders Sirota, Bowers and, presumably, Kos himself.  

    It seems to be suggesting the talking points or ideology that the netroots should follow, without providing any persuasive or fact based reasons for doing so.

    Uggggh.

    you should say it (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by leoncarre on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:18:27 PM EST
    that's just the antidote to talking points

    Parent
    You'd think (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:16:58 PM EST
    that it would be easier to stop a war than start one, no?

    Considering all the blood and treasure loss, not to mention its unpopularity across the international board.

    You would think huh? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:23:01 PM EST
    When all this started up though many persons older than I am told me that war becomes its own machine, and my husband said that history has revealed that war is its own machine also.  It develops a life of its own.  It is easier to stop when the whole nation at war is sacrificing something for it but hard to stop when the nation isn't.  That is where I have to give Americans some credit, most of them haven't felt the pain of this war yet but it was the issue they voted on and they voted to end it.

    Parent
    No, I never would have thought that (none / 0) (#57)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:04:58 AM EST
    In fact, it was one of the best reasons for opposing the war in the first place.

    Parent
    Maxine Waters holds strong (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by leoncarre on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:23:07 PM EST
    someone to be proud of

    Waters holding firm (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by bumblebums on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:25:01 PM EST
    Diary about her disappointment over at Orange:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/22/151553/785

    (Hello all.)

    Great speech from her (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:31:30 PM EST
    Thanks, I missed that earlier. n/t (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:40:07 PM EST
    Kucinich on Consequences (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by leoncarre on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:10:49 PM EST
    WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 22) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) gave the following speech on the floor of the House of Representatives today:

    10 Consequences of A "YES" Vote

    Keep the war going through the end of President Bush's term;
    Provide money to fuel an attack on Iran;
    Force the privatization of Iraqi oil;
    Escalate the insurgency;
    Increase the number of troop causalities in the middle of a civil war;
    Increase the number of civilian causalities;
    Create a demand for more troops;
    Enforce cutbacks of the agenda of many in Congress because money that could be used for schools, healthcare, seniors and the environment would continue to be spent for war;
    Forces the destabilization of the Middle East;
    Erodes the public's confidence in Congress.

    "It is time to end the war, to bring the troops home, to use the money that is in the pipeline to bring the troops home and to set in place a parallel process to stabilize Iraq.



    One giant step (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by roboleftalk on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:36:10 PM EST
    on the road to nowhere.

    Will those who argued for this (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:38:24 PM EST
    take responsibility when that happens? As it will certainly.

    Parent
    First Step (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by pontificator on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:33:11 PM EST
    First step: This bill passes the House

    Second Step:  The bill passes the Senate

    Third Step:  Bush vetos.  The veto dominates the headlines and is enormously unpopular.

    Fourth step: The Dems, bouyed by popular opinion over the battle, refuse to give him any other supplemental, other than the one he vetoes.

    Fifth Step:  Bush throws a tantrum, refuses to give in, and doesn't get a supplemental.  

    And, bingo, the war is defunded.

    And it all started with a first step.

    How realistic (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by taylormattd on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:42:45 PM EST
    is it, in all seriousness, that no other bill comes up if this one either fails to pass the Senate or Bush vetos?

    Because if there is no supplemental after this one goes down, then the war is defunded as of Sept 2007, right?

    Parent

    It will be up to the Blue Dogs (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by pontificator on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:48:10 PM EST
    Will the Blue Dogs be willing to join with the Repubs to pass a spending bill at that point.  The hope is, the veto, which WILL dominate headlines, will dissuade the BLue Dogs from taking such an unwise and unopular course.

    And then, it will be up to Bush to decide whether to take this Bill, or no Bill at all.

    Parent

    Oy!!! (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:49:03 PM EST
    No chance then.

    They are now EMBOLDENED.

    Parent

    Let's see how their constituents react to a veto (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by pontificator on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:55:05 PM EST
    Right now, probably 25% of the country is paying close attention to what is going on (and that's probably generous).

    If Bush vetoes the bill, however, the story will enter Anna Nicole Smith territory, leading every local news broadcast in the country, and blanketing the headlines.

    The stakes will be raised considerably.

    And THAT's where the rubber will meet the road.

    My concern, however, is that we won't get to that point.  My concern is that the Repubs know this, and will bottle up the bill in the Senate.

    Parent

    If only (none / 0) (#42)
    by taylormattd on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:58:49 PM EST
    it would enter Anna Nicole Smith territory . . .

    Parent
    The Blue (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by taylormattd on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:53:03 PM EST
    Dogs and Rs are not in charge of scheduling a vote on anything. It all depends on Pelosi's camp. I'm hoping (and maybe I'm dreaming here) that a veto of this bill, on which she spent so much time crafting a majority, will piss her off enough that she will simply decline to put any other supplemental forward. End of war in Sept 2007.

    Parent
    2008 (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:48:38 PM EST
    An d then defunding occurs two months before the election.

    No offense, but this is one of my major onjections to the bill.

    Makes me feel you weren't reading.

    Parent

    No, I'm not (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by taylormattd on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:54:55 PM EST
    talking about the 2008 deadline in the current House supplemental.

    What I'm saying is that if no supplemental passes, then the money will run out in September of this year.

    Parent

    Ahh (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:35:13 PM EST
    Good point.

    Parent
    It's actually (none / 0) (#55)
    by BooMan on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:54:05 PM EST
    THE point.

    Congress will pass a supplemental of some kind before September.  The question is, will Bush sign it?  

    You seem to be focused on 2008 for some reason.  Who knows what the mood of the country will be in late 2008?  

    What is urgent is that we not pass a rubber stamp appropriation.  That is what we will do if this bill fails.  There's no question that that is what we will do.  And that bill will have the support of very few Democrats, so it will absolutely be a Blue Dog bill, where they provide the lion's share of Dem votes.

    You have so misread this.

    Parent

    I was being nice (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:47:08 AM EST
    The cave ins just started Booman.

    You seem not to get that.

    Parent

    Let's see it happen then (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:47:25 PM EST
    If that is what happens, then I will have been totally wrong.

    And if it does not happen, what then?

    Parent

    Thanks for coming backj (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:50:13 PM EST
    with some good stuff.

    This is the Pontificator I remember.

    Parent

    I miss (none / 0) (#43)
    by taylormattd on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:01:05 PM EST
    your mad typing skillz!  ;)

    Also, I sure am spoiled by ajax comments.

    Parent

    ditto on that (none / 0) (#44)
    by pontificator on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:10:23 PM EST
    Who else can engage in 50 flame simultaneously?  heh.

    Parent
    OK then (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by buhdydharma on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:04:40 PM EST
    Thinking out loud...

    Now the story is dem unity.

    As mant Dems as can stomach it should vote for it to reinforce that.

    This......bill.......Fillibustered in the`Senate.

    No dramatic veto.

    Will there be Dem defectors?

    Story is Repubs vote for war again.

    House starts over

    Senate presses their Bill.

    Repubs vote for war again.

    Worse case scenario....Repubs are smart enough to put up a bill the Dogs are dumb enough to vote for.

    Best case scenario.....leadership realizes that funding won't get passed no matter what? They COULD announce now....that they will not fund the war. Take advantage of "Republican Obstrucionists." We refuse to guve Bush carte blanche. The principled stand along the lines of your plan. Win the spin.

    Or send another mediocre (slightly weaker?)bill to die in the Senate. For the  fourth or fifth? bill the repubs won't let through, building the Obstructionist storyline.

    Or allow themselves to lose the spin and get blamed for not ending AND not funding the war.

    Or REALLY cave. Write something bad enough to get through the Senate....and see what Bush does.

    Not midnight....but sure as hell not dawn.

    In any case the progs deserve a lot of praise for holding out as long as they did.

    Off to pout and plan.

    IOW, now we wait and see. (none / 0) (#56)
    by mentaldebris on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:47:30 AM EST
    Thanks for the rundown of possibilities. A nice mixture of hope and despair.

    The coin is in the air. Fate will call it.

    Parent

    escalation (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by conchita on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:14:25 PM EST
    what ever happened to outcry about bushco's escalation??  isn't the house essentially voting to fund it?  if i'm wrong, please set me straight.  but if i'm right.  wtf??

    did they get so caught up in finding consensus and pretending to end the war that they just agreed to fund the escalation?

    That was a nonbinding (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:19:40 PM EST
    outcry.

    Parent
    oh right (none / 0) (#54)
    by conchita on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:18:50 PM EST
    different resolution, same compromise b.s.

    Parent
    It's hard to know what I think right now (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:18:01 PM EST
    I know how I feel but the feel comes first and the think comes later.  If this becomes what I must accept in the end then I have to work from there.

    c'est finis (none / 0) (#23)
    by leoncarre on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:13:58 PM EST
    Four prominent liberal Democrats said Thursday they have given House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) the support she needs to pass the $124 billion wartime spending bill, even though they remain steadfastly opposed to any additional funding for the war.

    California Democrats Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey and Diane E. Watson said they did not want to stand in the way of the bill and have urged other liberal lawmakers to vote for it.

    Politico

    Kieth Ellison was great (none / 0) (#24)
    by leoncarre on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:20:31 PM EST
    on the Accountability Congress

    218 (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:09:09 PM EST


    Well, Markos disagrees with you (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:14:19 PM EST
    He thinks Bush will veto. If that's true, I say the bill should have been much stronger.

    Veto what? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:34:29 PM EST
    The bill that does not get out of the Senate?

    Parent
    Then, as you say, (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:47:01 PM EST
    the whole thing will have been a completely useless charade. The next step is a series of month-long emergency supplementals.

    No summer break for Congress; there's a war on!

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:20:22 PM EST
    More cave ins is in what is in store.

    Parent
    Well, having given up on the prospect (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:37:47 PM EST
    that Pelosi has a workable plan, I just don't know what to do. Byrd is our last hope, and there's only so much he can do.

    Parent
    it's frankly lost (none / 0) (#58)
    by shpilk on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:09:37 AM EST
    fwiw, I think the current proposed funding will have some of the wording stripped out and it will go on.

    Some Democrats still are reaching out their hand to meet halfway, and still have not figured out the sharp pain they feel is the teeth of the opposition as Bush's rabid dogs clamp on.

    There simply are not enough progressives in Congress to make this happen the traditional way, and there has been no trigger event yet that will convince the moderates to change.

    ble .. argh ..  

    So the House (none / 0) (#60)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 01:16:38 PM EST
    votes yes. Then the bill goes to the Senate, where more alterations will be made in an attempt to shape a bill that Bush will sign. In doing so, they will give away the whole farm, and validate the war for at least another year and a half. I do not believe the Senate will send Bush a bill knowing he will veto it.

    Either way, we're stuck in Iraq for at least another 18 months minimum. IMHO we are never leaving.