The Key to the Reid-Feingold "Not Funding" the Iraq Debacle Proposal

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:30:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

While many in Congress purport to want to end the Iraq Debacle, only one proposal is an actual proposal which uses the true powers of Congress to end the war- the "Not Spending" Power. The proposal is that of Senators Harry Reid and Russ Feingold. The magic words are the following:

c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

Any proposal that does NOT include this phrasing is merely for show. Having the same date or goals is nice and all, but absent those magic words, no proposal from the Congress is truly a proposal to end the Iraq Debacle, given who the President currently is.

For example, this proposal does not contain the magic words, and thus is markedly different to the Reid-Feingold bill. It would be helpful if the sponsor of that bill co-sponsored the Reid-Feingold bill.

< Chicago's Top Cop Resigns Amid Videtaped Beating Scandal | An In Depth Look at Monica Goodling >

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.

The Key to the Reid-Feingold "Not Funding" the Iraq Debacle Proposal | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Reid can get the waywards (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:41:59 PM EST

except for Pryor and Lieberman. It seems to me that the House should tack this on to the next iteration of the supplemental if Bush vetoes.

Interesting that (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 01:17:35 PM EST

he positions his initiative not as defunding or redeployment but as a fundamental "transition" of the mission:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

primarily:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

The very fact of how narrow this sounds in relation to what US troops are currently undertaking underscores just how huge and vague the mission creep has been in Iraq. Wasn't this in fact the administration's own ostensible purpose for remaining in Iraq since those WMDs failed to turn up?

Today is a good day for me! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 01:58:45 PM EST

This is part of reality now, it has been placed on the table, it has teeth. This is the day before Christmas for this Army family. A Christmas three years late but now on the horizon! I can see it from here at least and it is glorious.

: There's a long way to go yet (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 04:58:34 PM EST

but let's hope.

Re-Surge-ing (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 05:13:48 PM EST

`The Surge Is Working!' Isn't Working
April 2nd, 2007 1:46 pm
Bob Cesca | HuffPo

Throughout the land of pundits, you can hear the sound faintly but it's clear. It goes, "Things are looking better in Iraaaaaaaq. The surge is woooorrrrking..." That other noise you hear -- that faint rhythmic clomping sound -- that's the sound of goose-stepping from Michelle Malkin's I Am Actor James Woods cult.
They're marching around to 7-Eleven stores demanding the clerks take their oath. If the clerks refuse to say "I Am Actor James Woods' Nipple" or whatever, Malkin personally tortures them.
Many pundits and White House apologists have come right out and said it (about the surge working, not the "I Am Actor James Woods' Colon" pledge -- I hope). Fox News Channel's John Gibson took a break from encouraging white supremacy to say it. The Washington Post's Robert Kagan said it. Bill Kristol said it, too. Then again, everything Kristol has ever said about Iraq -- EVER -- has been total horsesh*t.

For sure. (none / 0) (#2)
by walt on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 01:09:51 PM EST

It appears as if this may be the real deal. Also, the language may be a shot across the bow of Bu$hInc's rudderless ship of state: sign the bill ya' got, blowhard, or you're really gonna' hate the next one.

Also, isn't there still mark-up & conference committee on the versions that Bu$h xliii is huffing & puffing about his veto???

Further, does this look as if Sen. Reid found more "waywards" coming his direction from the GOoPerz? Or is there a Democratic congressional strategy slipping under the lame stream muddya?

The phrase being used lately is... (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 01:11:53 PM EST

...combat troops, whenever there is talk of redeployment. There are about 145,000 in Iraq now. How many of those are combat troops.

IOW, how many could Bush leave there for such things as manning however many permanent bases they've built during the occupation, special ops, training Iraqi Army units, etc., and whatever other smokescreens could be used?

btw, WAPO finally picked up the story about 15 min. ago, and ABC 11 min. ago.

There isn't a permanent base there (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 02:14:06 PM EST

that could be manned without combat troops. Al Asad is probably positioned the best of all of them and is the safest base right now, it is in the middle of no where surrounded by desert. The perimeter has be constantly patroled though or "they" get close enough to mortar the base. For fun "they" blow up the power lines one day and then the water lines the next day. If you have power and water all on the same day at Al Asad that's a pretty good day ;)


bernhard, the host of moonofalabama.org, who is (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by conchita on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 02:38:45 PM EST

well versed in military strategy, etc., had this to say about the house and senate bills and how they apply to the current situation in iraq:

Kabuki Over Iraq
Balkinization has posted the House and Senate bills on the Iraq war financing. The brouhaha about these bills somehow restricting Bush seems overdone. The House bill will retract troops other than are needed for:
(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.
(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.
(4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.
The Senate bill is not much different. It would abolish troops but for:
(2) COMMENCEMENT OF PHASED REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ.--The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes:
(A) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(B) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
(C) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.
"Redeployment" is NOT the word for getting troops back "home", but describes to move them somewhere around the Middle East. But that is not the big trick here - that is in the excepted tasks.
Some hundreds of troops are in "roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions", some thousands are "training and equipping Iraqi forces" and is not every current kinetic action of U.S. troops in Iraq described as "conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations?" Add to those forces the needed GIs that are "protecting ... American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces" or in the Senate version "protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure" and where do you end?
By the way - does the "infrastructure" include the four huge bases the U.S. has built? Of course it does and what about those oil wells?
So if you start a tally you will end up with some 15,000 to 20,000 in the primary role of diplomacy, training and counter-terrorism and about three to four times that number to protect these. Additionally one will need the logistic components to get all these folks their lobster tails and ice-cream and those logistics will need some protection too.
Which leads to a total, according to the scribble on my blotter, somewhere quite north of 100,000 troops - maybe 150,000 - staying in Iraq and about the same number nearby.
The showdown between the President and Congress over this is just for the public theater. The proposed restrictions are all virtual. The Dems have certainly not made a serious attempt to get the U.S. out of its illegal operation in Iraq.
"We'll use this for 2008 and then we will fix the mess," is their intended play. It will take them some more years and Iraq some hundredthousands of lives to understand, and then acknowledge, that there is nothing fixable left.

link for comments on his post.

it is good to see reid backing up feingold and also letting the administration and the american people know that congress is serious.


TarheelDem on MLW has posted highlights of (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by TexDem on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 06:09:16 PM EST

the bill HR 1591. Check it out.


Bernhard is a little misleading (none / 0) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:19:18 AM EST

Murtha has been working hard to put brakes on the White House writing their own rules about how long a soldier can be in theater. Soldiers aren't supposed to be in theater over 365 days before they have to be redeployed for 20 months to a noncombat area like Germany or Stateside. If these rules are reinstituted we don't have more than 20,000 to 30,000 that can remain in Iraq and rotate in and out of Iraq. Soldiers are continuing to leave service in mind boggling numbers too when they can. Everybody has had it with Iraq. You can't send what you don't have. Patraeus was always such a showboater too and he has become so quiet lately it's scary.


thanks, military tracy (none / 0) (#23)
by conchita on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:22:39 AM EST

military strategy and operations is not a strong point for me and don't know where to begin to take apart someone's assessment. you know much more in this area.


: I read a lot of stuff that (none / 0) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:50:41 PM EST

would be right on the money if our troop numbers weren't so depleted. It is something that can be hard to remember if you aren't dealing with it every day. Bush could certainly attempt to pull what was suggested but he would have to have the manpower. Perhaps one reason he's slobbering about the supplemental is that his manpower is in that supplemental in the form of mercenaries. That whole area of the Iraq conflict is in such shadows it is hard to know if they even have that plan in the works or the manpower available if the money is there.

Howdy BTD (none / 0) (#8)
by taylormattd on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 02:13:51 PM EST

Can this bill be filibustered?

: Does not matter (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:43:59 PM EST

Vetoes don't fund the war.

It's not going to pass... (none / 0) (#11)
by Slado on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 04:36:44 PM EST

Bush will Veto anything that the dems put forth with a "hard" "soft" or any kind of deadline.

He will veto it and the dems aren't anywhere close to 60votes to override so they're done.

The deeper they dig this hole the bigger political price they will pay.

Bush has nowhere else to go. He really believes that we should finish the job or at least give the surge achance (especially since it shows signs of working)

While polls may show that Americans want a deadline ultimately the party that engineers failure or holds up money for troops on the ground will loose and either way that's where the dems are headed.

Ultimately IMHO the dems will fail but it will be interesting to watch.

surge working??? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Edger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 04:48:25 PM EST

What are your metrics? Malkinetrics?

87 US military personnel killed in March, almost double the Iraqi armed forces' losses of 44.

"Bush has nowhere else to go" (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 05:03:02 PM EST

The Onion:

Bush Refuses To Set Timetable For Withdrawal Of Head From White House Banister
WASHINGTON, DC--Though critics have argued that he does not understand the futility of his current situation, President Bush announced today that he has no plans to remove his head from its current position: wedged painfully between two balusters on a White House staircase.
"Setting a timetable for withdrawal of my head would send mixed messages about why I put my head here in the first place," Bush said at a press conference on the Grand Staircase. "I am going to finish what I set out to accomplish here, no matter how unpopular my decision may be, or how much my head hurts while stuck between these immovable stairway posts."...
"The only way for the president to successfully remove himself from this situation is not to pull his head out of the banister, but to push his whole body through," White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten said. "We're asking Congress and the American people to give the commander-in-chief a chance to try this new plan, which involves forcing his shoulders, torso, arms, and legs through that banister."...

: The Onion..... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by kdog on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 05:26:51 PM EST

rocks.
That about sums it up.

Ahh ... (none / 0) (#19)
by Sailor on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:34:14 PM EST

... the o'lielly and lamebaugh opinion is in!

Just because at least 70% of Americans and Iraqis want us out and the dems want us out means nothing to bushlickers.

So I say g'head, veto it, show America and the rest of the world who started, owns and insists on more American and Iraqi deaths every day.


Meanwhile, for the first time, a third aircraft (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 08:49:07 PM EST

carrier and its attendant destroyers, etc., is joining the two already in the Persian Gulf.

Excuuuuuzzzze me. (none / 0) (#20)
by walt on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:24:28 PM EST

I thought old blood & guts Bu$h xliii had his head stuck somewhere else. Or is it Jack Daniels & coke Bu$h. No, wait, it's champagne & caviar Bu$h. That's right, he's a teetotaler now. It's near-beer & pretzels Bu$h.

What's that champagne squadron doing now-a-days?

You veto that bill, now ya'heanh, pretzelnint.