The Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill:What's Going On?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:46:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Remember when the LeftBlogs were focused on the Iraq Supplemental?

Surprisingly, after yesterday's victory in the Senate, it now seems that Democrats are both capable and ready to send a supplemental funding bill that requires withdrawal from Iraq to Bush's desk. While there are still other battles to be fought before that point, such as the conference report on the funding bill and a vote today on the Webb amendment requiring congressional approval before an attack on Iran [whatever happened to that?], the next major step in this fight will clearly come when Bush vetoes the supplemental.

(Emphasis supplied.) Well, it now seems that Dems are NOT capable of sending a supplemental funding bill that requires withdrawal from Iraq to Bush's desk. Apparently, there will be no fight on the conference report. 0 for 2 there. So what if it becomes 0 for 3? What happens if Bush does not veto? Where does this ingenious strategy go from here? Can't Bush ask for the same language for the regular Iraq appropriations bill this summer? I mean, he will have "caved in" already. How "reasonable" can a guy be? I think it becomes increasingly clear that the Dems' Iraq supplemental funding strategy has been a big mistake. The Reid-Feingold proposal, which can work without becoming legislation, is the only approach that can end the Debacle.

But not to worry, Progressives are fully engaged with the 2008 Presidential election. And aren't we happy about that? I mean who wants to focus on the Iraq Debacle anyway? It's a lot more fun to beat up on Hillary Clinton every day no? What harm can Bush and Iraq do in the next 20 months? A few of us are worried:

Confronting Mr. Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty. . . . If nothing is done to wind down this war during the 21 months — 21 months! — Mr. Bush has left, the damage may be irreparable.

< Victims' Rights Week? We Need to Protect the Rights of the Accused | Operation Spot: Airport Passenger Behavior Screening >

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 Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill:What's Going On? | 46 comments (46 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Jerry Nadler speaking at an ACTnow planning (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by conchita on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:18:43 AM EST

meeting yesterday emphasized 1) how important it is to consolidate the democratic majority in congress and 2) that the democratic majority not become too moderate. yet, he was one of the first progressives to cave to pelosi on the supplemental funding?? unfortunately, there was no q&a period when i could ask him how he reconciled this or what he saw coming out of conference.

and, as you pointed out in your final paragrah, why was he there yesterday? - it's all about elections. the purpose of the planning meeting was to determine where ACTnow would focus its energies in the coming election - at this stage it is not endorsing a presidential candidate - if the focus should be on state or national races and which issues would be most effective in capturing swing voters.

What is the difference (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Maryb2004 on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:35:56 AM EST

What is the difference between the house and senate bills on months of funding provided? Have they agreed to reconcile that?

Cause Disturbance (5.00 / 0) (#5)
by CauseDisturbance on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:58:40 AM EST

Armando: I know you have posted a gazillion times but to complete your case you need a detailed examination of the legislative tactics. You need to explain exactly how Reid and Pelosi can isolate the Iraq funding even if they lose majority support. Can they do this using their leadership powers over the process? I don't know. Do you?

Alternatively they simply force a government wide shutdown. Exactly how would this work? Would a filibuster in the senate be a better approach? Is it even possible to filibuster Iraq spending or would special budget-related rules mean that only a mere majoirty is required to invoke cloture? Could the Repubs get such a majority?

You analyze the answers to questions like that and you have a very strong argument.

Good question but (1.00 / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:18:43 AM EST

not Armando's responsibility, I think.

There is legislative precedent (probably much prececent). Here is one example:

[In early 2006] The Administration's budget [sought from Congress] $1.475 billion for the High School Reform Initiative

The President proposed this same initiative [the previous year] but Congress refused to fund it, deciding instead to provide continuation funding to most of the programs the Administration proposed to eliminate last year.

Congress has the power to defund. Congress has the mechanisms in place to defund. Congress needs only the will to defund.


: I forgot the link (1.00 / 0) (#10)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:29:55 AM EST

Th quote above is from ISTE Washington Notes

We Need The Answers (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by CauseDisturbance on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:22:10 AM EST

Edger: absolutely BUT that assumes that you have a majority. The Repubs had a majority in early 2006 and the discipline to keep it together. Armando is proposing a staretgy that doesn't require a majority. I'm just asking if he has really gamed it all the way out. I want to support Armando's position and if he provided answers to my questions, I would push his strategy all over the web.

I think you are overcomplicating. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:25:53 AM EST

It Needs To Be Thought Out... (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by CauseDisturbance on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:01:12 AM EST

...if we're going to win the argument against Matthew Yglesias and Rahm Emmanuel and Barack Obama and Carl Levin etc.


Oh Yeah: And John Podesta (5.00 / 0) (#12)
by CauseDisturbance on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:01:50 AM EST

It has been thought out. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:08:35 AM EST

I think you overcomplicate, and I suspect you do it intentionally. I'm beginning to suspect you are simply grasping for any way to avoid defunding.

Now why would that be?


Give Me A Break (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by CauseDisturbance on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:00:14 PM EST

Dude: I'm not overcomplicating.

You're undercomplicating. I'm beginning to suspect its because you want Armando to get into a debate and lose because he can't answer the other side's arguments. I guess you want to avoid defunding. Now why would that be?

I would push Armando's proposal to the hilt if I knew it was fully thought out. You can't get into a debate with people like Yglesias and Podesta if you don't know what you're talking about.


Debate? win? lose? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:06:47 PM EST

THERE ARE NO WINNERS IN WAR...ONLY DEGREES OF LOSING. If you want to lessen how bad the losing is going to be you have to first choose to stop BEING AT WAR! Duh!


He wants to 'debate' (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:09:39 PM EST

instead of 'defund'.


He wants to make some war (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:13:31 PM EST

about whether or not we should make some more war after making fruitless bloody war for four plus years now ;)? I'm feeling stupendously tired for some reason.


: Yes. (1.00 / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:18:49 PM EST

Yglesias, Emmanuel, Obama, & Levin (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by fairleft on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:11:52 AM EST

There's no argument with those folks, they're simply not on the anti-occupation side. They're on the "this can still work" side, or the "we have to make this work or the consequences will be unbearable" side. That's the problem.

It's much smarter to think of ways to make life politically hard on all the half-assed or no-assed on Iraq types. Especially for the Presidential candidates, why is that such a tough question? Is Obama gonna pay no price at all for not backing Reid-Feingold, for example? How can he still be a dreamy progressive?


: Exactly. (1.00 / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:15:12 AM EST

I was asked once by someone (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:26:42 PM EST

much more intelligent than I am if my thinking ever got in the way of me ;). Sometimes mine does. Does yours ever do that to you?


Because it is a game (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:26:26 AM EST

you can't game it all the way out. Games always have an element of chance to them. The "other game" gamed all the way out goes one great way and one terrible way too. What if everybody stopped it with the games and fought the honorable fight? When it comes to doing what is right and what is wrong, Iraq is an "f"ing no brainer!


Forget about the (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:34:31 AM EST

Yglesias's and Emmanuel's and Obama's and Levin's and Podesta's.

There is no need to waste time convincing the unconvinceable. They are nothing. Five people either way will make no difference.

What is needed is a Democratic Leadership that WANTS to end the debacle. Which needs enough pressure from enough people for them to realize that the consequences next year of not "not" funding it are something they cannnot escape.

There are already more than enough people.

Pelosi seems to be forgetting about those consequences.

: If only the Democratic leadership (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:56:27 AM EST

was as strong as the American people are on Iraq. It is Fubar and everybody understands Fubar. We have all lived with some kind of Fubar in our lives. When things are Fubar you do your best to sort it out. Sometimes you buy a house built on a nice hillside and find out that it is sitting on clay and your house starts falling off the hillside and coming apart. Resolving this issue isn't going to be easy, do your abandon the house when the ceiling starts to crack or when it falls on you? Do you attempt to save some parts of the house? When do you remove your personal belongings from the house? We all have to have shelter though so this will have to be resolved before some of the family members freeze to death. We will never get over how someone lied to us and built this house that we thought was okay and we invested our hard earned money in. It has taken our treasure and we aren't sure if we can redeem our treasure and we need a roof. We are going to take a hit on it but how we help ourselves resolve the matter determines how big the hit is going to be. My dad was a construction contractor who one time did what he could to help families deal with the outcomes of another contractor who built homes like these on a clay hillside. He even went so far as to tell people looking at some of the homes for sale there to not buy them. He would just drive up and say, "Don't buy this house, it is going to fall off the hillside." I remember that the offending contractor threatened my father that he would return the favor when he could and my father said, "Go ahead, I'm not going to build any crappy houses on clay that are going to fall off hillsides." When did Democrats become such feeble children? Have they always been this way and now I just noticed?

RJ Eskow (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:02:16 PM EST

In a post at HuffPo last December said this:

It's been fascinating to watch pundits as they demand that Democrats ignore the message of their own victory. That message, as documented in exit polls, is clear: get out of Iraq.

What's been equally fascinating is the eagerness with which Democrats have run away from their own mission, as given to them by the American people. If Rahm Emanuel didn't exist, the Democrats would have had to invent him. Their behavior is regrettable but understandable, given the media landscape. If they move to make positive change in Iraq, they'll be decimated as extremists by the press - even though they would be doing the expressed will of both the American and Iraqi peoples.

In the same post he also said:

The media enforcers have forced the Democrats into a nearly impossible choice: Do the right thing and lose in 2008, or cower and hope that somebody else will solve the problem.

I think he was right, for the most part.

I think he was wrong in that last sentence, or it was a misprint. It should have read:

"Do the right thing and WIN in 2008, or cower and hope that somebody else will solve the problem, which will also mean a huge Democratic loss in 2008."

RJ then went on to wrap up getting it right again:

Americans and Iraqis continue to die because a media-enforced myth of centrism and bipartisanship prevents our democracy from being more responsive to the will of its people. "Centrism" and "bipartisanship" are euphemisms for "the mutual interests of Washington party insiders." Democracy, however, demands that government respond to the voters' mandate by ending the war.

Don't blow it, Nancy.

I think he was talking about it from a MSM frame (none / 0) (#37)
by TexDem on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:04:00 PM EST

and not his perspective. Or maybe you're right, but I'll take it he meant it as how the MSM frames it, however bogus that frame may be.


Yes. (1.00 / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:11:30 PM EST

But I think the MSM is wrong.


: Me too (none / 0) (#41)
by TexDem on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 04:11:34 PM EST

Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:47:23 PM EST

It is you who has to make the call.

Whatever (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by CauseDisturbance on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:57:14 PM EST

OK, bro, you just throw a righteous temper tantrum and I'm sure you'll be very persuasive and get your way.

Ok. (1.00 / 0) (#31)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:02:54 PM EST

Whatever. You've made yourself clear.


So now that you have lost this debate thing (none / 0) (#32)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:07:08 PM EST

You want BTD to throw a temper tantrum so you can point at him and say Look At Temper Tantrum BTD and you can minimalize the facts that he has the courage to stand by when everyone else is folding up like rickety lawn chairs. I don't think it's going to happen to your liking anymore. I have had the same done to me so I know this whole scenario. No temper tantrums here, just the facts until everyone can get a firm grip on the facts.


Please (1.00 / 1) (#35)
by CauseDisturbance on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:44:21 PM EST

What you knuckleheads refuse to understand is I personally agree with you 100%. I personally am for immediate defunding. If someone asks me what we should do on Iraq funding, I say we should defund now and anyone who disagrees is a pussy. OK?

What I'm debating is the best way to persuade centrists, blue dogs, establishment Democrats, and other weasels to agree with us. I think Armando has a way, if he just tied together some of the loose ends.


Cause (1.00 / 1) (#39)
by Peaches on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:20:06 PM EST

I think your name sums up the strategy BTD and others here are using.

Many people come to TL for debate and discussion. I include myself among those that do.

Then there are others who see TL has a vehicle for positive change. They believe what is written here can have an impact in Washington. I happen to believe whatever impact is achieved through the internet is of a very limited nature, but I am starting to see some evidence that perhaps the internet and people speaking their minds on keyboards to each other can have an effect. I, like you, agree with BTD that de-funding is the answer, but see some impracticalities in the way--most of which you have already mentioned. I like to have the issues hashed out among liberals for many reasons, not the least of which is to have an alternative strategy in hand if the leading strategy fails. However, I can see the point of having a take-no-prisoners-approach that refuses to admit faults in the pursuit of a specified goal for an extremely important objective-such as ending the Iraqi War. I don't see this strategy being effective in every liberal or progressive cause, but, in this case, perhaps there is some merit given the popular support for ending the war and letting congress dictate the direction vs. the administration plans. IOW, the no compromise approach in this case might actually work, although as should be obvious, if it fails - the finger-pointing will begin and the left could be fractured even more among progressives and moderates as the blaming plays itself out.

Anyway, I appreciate the points you bring up, I just think that you may be wasting your time here if you are looking to discuss this issue in depth. BTD plays the instigator for a progressive agenda to a much larger degree than he does lead intelligent conversation and discussion. This is not to say that he is not intelligent-but is rather by design since he believes his role as a leading progressive voice looms large and can have a lasting effect on policy (and, perhaps, he does).


Very well said (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:29:42 PM EST

I can debate just about anything but Iraq. I'm hitting critical mass though being part of a military family. While we debate it and we have debated and debated and debated it, people are dying. Real people are really dying and nothing is getting better in any way. Responsible citizens must now use their power. I believe everything has a time and place and for me the time to debate Iraq has passed now and the only logical thing to do that remains is take action with far different goals in mind than winning the Iraq War. We must begin executing our leave of Iraq now and solve the challenges that will face us with.


Take No Prisoners, Yes. Be Taken Prisoner, No. (3.00 / 1) (#42)
by CauseDisturbance on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 04:21:46 PM EST

"I can see the point of having a take-no-prisoners-approach that refuses to admit faults in the pursuit of a specified goal for an extremely important objective-such as ending the Iraqi War."

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm all for the take-no-prisoners approach on Iraq. Its too important to play games. Armando's strategy, if it checks out, is a take-no-prisoners strategy. I'm for it -- if it checks out.

However, if there is an obvious process-based reason why it can't work, then I'm not for us getting into a debate and making fool of ourselves and setting back out cause. That just makes us THEIR prisoners.

All I'm saying is let's do our homework, make sure our strategy is sound, and then push it to the hilt and take no prisoners.


: You truly believe that there is a (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:06:03 PM EST

substitute for just doing the right thing when everything else that isn't the right thing has been tried and we have only come up with same bloodbath only bloodier and going no place?

If you are an American citizen (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:02:53 PM EST

You do get to make the call, along with the rest of us. In fact the call was made in 2006, I live in a Democracy, those people in Washington SERVE AT MY PLEASURE! It is my duty as an American citizen to state to them what I want them to do and I did my duty, now it's time for them to do theirs! I did my duty, lots of us did our duty, and now that is being ignored and people are throwing all this hoopla in the way. The Democratic Leadership knows what job they were hired for, if they can't do it please let us know so we can hire someone who can! NONE OF THIS IS THAT HARD TO GET! NONE OF IT!

Clear (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:09:27 PM EST

"As long as we follow the presidents path in Iraq the war is lost, but there is still a chance to change course, and we must change course."

--Harry Reid

video: Reporting the 'war is lost' story

: That link was emailed to me 5 minutes ago (1.00 / 0) (#34)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:15:15 PM EST

from David Allen at Harvard University, with this comment:
The Phillips 'reporting' was one of the more egregious. It needs a response in kind, in the medium. If folks can use the embed code for this minute-long commentary, I hope they will.

Then try to convince ::them:: (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 02:34:23 PM EST

Because you're not being convincing at all, here. But you could start by standing by your own statement: "I say we should defund now and anyone who disagrees is a pussy." instead of following it and qualifying it with all the contradictory if's you keep throwing out, and saying you want to support it if only this or if only that or if someone else could water it down enough to make it acceptable to you.

I personally don't believe you. I think you'd rather debate endlessly rather than take a stand, and debate endlessly in the hope of having me and others soften the call for defunding.

Which right now it appears is your purpose.

But then maybe I'm just a knucklehead?

I don't know, but... (4.50 / 2) (#7)
by fafnir on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:21:03 AM EST

I noticed last week that the Democratic leadership was signaling its intent to back down. There's talk of a "two-month" plan, or of crafting a so-called "clean bill."

The electorate has spoken. There is no need for Democrats to contemplate capitulation.

The leadership must stand firm on including a binding timetable for withdrawal, and let Bush veto "funding for the troops" as many times as he likes. If Bush wants the money then he must accept accountability to end the occupation.

I asked a question in another thread (1.00 / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:13 AM EST

of one Bush supporter.

I'll ask the same question here of anyone else who opposes ending the debacle in Iraq as soon as possible, and especially of the Democratic Leadership who are through their refusal to defund it complicit with Bush:

There is nothing left you can say that can justify the debacle in Iraq. There is nothing left you can say that can justify its beginning, its execution, or its continuance.

There is only one thing left to consider. You intentionally choose to go down on the wrong side of history with the most notorious and conscienceless psychotic mass murderers that have ever existed in the long story of the human race.

It can't be simply because you are unable to admit a mistake in judgement. No one, I believe, could be that insecure, and still be sane. Or be worthy leaders.

Why do you do this to yourself?

: And why should anyone follow you? (1.00 / 0) (#4)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:54:52 AM EST

If you were (1.00 / 0) (#27)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:46:26 PM EST

you would be calling for defunding, and explaining why and how it works, instead of asking how and waffling on whether to support it.

You either want to defund it or you don't. So far you haven't shown that you do. Start there and we have something to talk about, otherwise you're just in the way.

Capisce?

Dems & GOP agree on timetable (none / 0) (#43)
by annefrank on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:27:32 PM EST

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301131.html?hpid=topnews

It would be nice to see (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:16:16 PM EST

Pelosi publicly state now that if Bush vetoes that bill she will co-sponsor the Reid-Feingold bill and introduce it immediately.

Ideally I'd rather see her back Kucinich's bill.


One awful thing about the withdrawal date (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by annefrank on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:54:07 PM EST

It's April Fool's Day! Can't you imagine the rightwing jokes?


: Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:56:10 PM EST

I always thought the rightwing was a joke. No?

Or is? ;-)