Iraq Supplemental: The Dem Gift To The GOP

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:01:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Greg Sargent gets this from a congressional Dem staffer:

[A]side from sending the bill back there are only two apparent possibilities left: Either the White House gives on one of these points. Or the Dem Congressional leadership caves and produces a bill with some sort of benchmarks but no accountability -- in other words, something that's effectively meaningless. . . ."If this is what they go with, it begs the question, Why did we go through this whole exercise with the first supplemental and everything else?" our staffer asks. "What did we really accomplish?"

The staffer answers the question:

Worse, he says, aside from the fact that the benchmarks-with-no-accountability measure would be a substantive failure, it also contains a serious political pitfall. If the final compromise has (meaningless) benchmarks that the White House initially opposed, the possibility is that Republicans in Congress, by supporting such a measure, would be the ones perceived as having been the bridge of compromise between Congressional Dems and Bush. "If the Republicans come across as brokering this deal, not only have we gained nothing, but they will have gained a lot," he says. "The Republicans will be the ones perceived to have brought Bush back into line. This is certainly not a gift we want to give them."

I told you so:

Mark my words, Democrats will listen to the ignorant advice of the Alters and the Kleins and cave in to Bush on Iraq. And the result will be a political loser for Democrats who will reinforce their spineless image.

< Brands, Political Discourse and Iraq | Sen. Ken Salazar Calls for Gonzales to Resign >

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.

Iraq Supplemental: The Dem Gift To The GOP | 51 comments (51 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yep (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Maryb2004 on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:26:25 PM EST

Full funding. Meaningless limitations. No different than the last bad bill. But the heroic Republicans broke through the "gridlock" - their favorite late 80's, early 90's talking point.

I can hear Rush now. (Well, if I listened to Rush.)

Can I ask a stupid question? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:28:56 PM EST

How in the hell was this NOT obvious from the gitgo?

I'd like to think this proves my genius but I don't believe it does.

This was as predictable as the sun rising in the East.


Because some of us thought (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:30:22 PM EST

that Reid and Pelosi were smarter than Daschle and Gephardt.


I can't believe you typed that (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:33:40 PM EST

It was my very thought about an hour ago!


No link=no credit. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by oculus on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:38:11 PM EST

: I only thought it (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:40:23 PM EST

Sometimes I think bad things and I don't post them. Sometimes I think bad things and I post all of them ;)

Thinking on it (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:36:36 PM EST

I never liked Pelosi's play on this. I thought Reid was on the right track when he brought up Reid-Feingold.

I think it is still salvageable in a way, take out the benchmarks and all the rest.

Give Bush a clean bill and PROMISE the NOT funding issue will be brought up again on the regular appropriation.

Say, in the interest of the troops and the short time frame, we are leaving the accountability issues out of this bill but we are coming right back to them. Immediately on the regular appropriation.

The only good thing that happened is that the execrable House Move On supported bill was jettisoned early.


Disagree On Reid (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by MO Blue on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:24:24 PM EST

Had Reid/Feingold been what leadership recommended from the get go or if it had strong, united Dem support when brought to the floor for a vote, it would have been a good move. It was brought to the floor when everyone knew it would not have strong Dem support. Statements by Clinton and Obama prior to the vote showed weak lackluster support even as they said they would vote for cloture. The vote and the statements by those Dems who opposed it, showed clearly that the Dems did not have enough votes to do anything but provide complete funding for the troops no matter how much they had to give away. It gave Bush and the Republicans proof that no compromises were necessary when they met with Reid and Pelosi.

IMO the only reason that Reid co-sponsored Reid/Feingold and allowed it to come to the floor was to try and minimize the outrage when the Dems gave away most if not all of the original teeth in the bill.


Pelosi (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:39:41 PM EST

has done nothing but play up to Bush while trying to appear not to.


I know you dislike her (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:42:31 PM EST

But I think you are attributing motive to miscalculation.


Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:47:17 PM EST

I'm more result oriented though.


: I don't know if it's motive or miscalculation (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:49:26 PM EST

All I know is there has to be continual pressure on her. To make her calculator work right.

Crying? THERE'S NO CRYING (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:41:58 PM EST

IN POLITICS! Give back the gavel now.


Why? (none / 0) (#39)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:44:40 PM EST

Why give him any emergency supplemental now?

Give him a different bill. Here's $100B for redeployment and Iraq reconstruction and real public education about what will happen in Iraq. 90 days for redeployment and he is to send audited expenditure reports every 30 days to congress.

Tell him if he vetoes it to use regular DOD budget to redeploy, and he still has 90 days. There is provably more than enough money for it there.


: We have some lead time. (none / 0) (#41)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 07:23:14 PM EST

We can drum up enough support and pressure to move the window far enough for this by monday, right?
;-)

Maybe I was stupid (none / 0) (#33)
by taylormattd on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:23:10 PM EST

But I felt I should try and be optimistic. I felt like I should give the leadership the benefit of the doubt given that they had just regained power, and given that I certainly don't have any inside information as to the workings of the caucus as a whole.

I held out hope that the leadership was acting on knowledge and information about other members that I could never have, and that the leadership would be able to guide and shape the positions of other lawmakers in the right direction, with the appropriate pressure from the public, of course.


Well (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:41:05 PM EST

If you do not trust your own judgment in the future THEN you would be stupid.


: I should add (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by taylormattd on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:49:35 PM EST

that it took me a while to get up to speed and truly understand the issues. Remember, there are a lot of moving parts, here. Issues of funding, not funding, vetos, supplementals, etc, require some effort and a bit of reading to fully understand.
I know that when I first read some of your diaries on the issue, I didn't fully understand what you were talking about. Before any of this made sense to me, I had to read up on how the war was been funded: i.e., through supplementals. I also remember being confused about whether any of the war funding was included in the general 2 year appropriation bills.
So I understand why the general population doesn't get it. This certainly is not a comment absolving Congress, however.

I was of exactly that mind (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:31:25 PM EST

until Armando started making noise about the supplemental.


Dude (none / 0) (#42)
by talex on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:05:03 PM EST

quit deleting stuff that should not being deleted


I have deleted (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 19, 2007 at 07:26:30 AM EST

comments that violate site rules.

I think it is clear that you are mostly trolling here.

Consider the differences between Stewie, who agrees with you, and yourself.

Take Stewie as your guide on this.


No (1.00 / 2) (#45)
by talex on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:11:20 PM EST

Not trolling. Putting forward different ideas than you or some of the other posters is not trolling especially when they are endorsed by elected politicians and Liberal advocacy groups.

Pointing out things you have not considered when forming your opinions is not trolling either. I think you just don't like for others to see that maybe you don't know or consider everything when posting.

Starting from this post forward I will save a copy of every post of mine and of the one I'm responding to along with a screen shot of the page. If you delete a post of mine and I honestly think it was a fair post and in-line with new ideas, discussion, and debate - and it is keeping with the theme and subject matter of the thread then I will take appropriate action.

I'm sure Jeralyn would not approve of the posts you have deleted of mine and would not consider them in the least as trolling. I'm also certain that she knows of your hot headed ways and the flame wars and name calling you engaged in at dkos.

I have no problem complaining to her with copies of my posts as evidence for her to judge. If you think she will back you up only to have HER blog gain a reputation for one which does not promote FREE SPEECH then keep on deleting. But in the end it might just be you who is deleted.

You have already threatened me with banning for no good reason. And I have no Idea who Stewie is nor do I care. But your post smells of another threat. You can be your own best enemy and you know it. Keep on keeping on and see where it leads.

Don't threaten me and For Sure don't fcuk with me.

Be a man and debate.

[this post and yours has been saved as has a screen shot of the page and every subsequent page from here forward]


Oh Yeah (1.00 / 2) (#46)
by talex on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:40:29 PM EST

feel free to delete this nd my last post. it is intended just for you so as long as your read it there is no further use for it.


These are childish comments, talex. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by Edger on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:16:15 PM EST

Talex hates it when we forget (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by andgarden on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:53:46 PM EST

that he has special knowledge.


A TMF (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:05:21 PM EST

Not to be underestimated.....


"TMF"? n/t (none / 0) (#50)
by andgarden on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:10:40 PM EST

: ToughMuthaF'*ker (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:12:46 PM EST

At least I don't feel (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:26:37 PM EST

"stabbed in the back" by leadership; we knew this was coming.

:::Political Cost::: (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:28:18 PM EST

Who thought there was a political cost to defunding?

Who thought there would be a political gain by NOT defunding.

Who still thinks so? Are they willing to die in the place of someone who will because the Democrats cave?

E (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:31:25 PM EST

As you know, this has been my argument from the beginning.

Not only is setting a date certain for NOT funding the right thing to do as the only way to end the Iraq Debacle, it was the SMART political move.

It is the only thing that makes a lick of sense.

As I note to Mary below, I'd love to trumpet this as confirmation of my genius but I honestly think any simpleton should have seen this coming.

The stupidity of EVERYONE, from Dem leadership to thr blogs, astounded me on this.


It's unbelievable. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:33:59 PM EST

I've alway thought better of people - that they can't be that stupid. I'm wrong as often as anyone else though.


So you are not buying the (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:38:08 PM EST

we are geniuses theory?

Me neither.


: It's the people (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:44:08 PM EST

who do buy that theory that cause this kind of sh*t.

Results of Dem's Iraq Strategy (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by MO Blue on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:49:03 PM EST

Bush's Stay The Course Policy continues unimpeded, the Dems look weak and ineffectual, angers all those who want to end the occupation, military families who voted Dem so that their loved ones wouldn't go to Iraq again loss faith in party and the Republicans are rescued from a political disaster and given the political advantage.

Hats off to the Dem leadership that didn't support strong effective action and help sell it to the American people. By immediately (same day) offering weaker proposals without allowing support to build for the stronger measures, you went into negotiations from a weak deferential position rather than from a position of strength.

Hats off to the influential Dems like Levin and Obama who before any final bill was even drafted publicly announced how the Dems would compromise rather than depriving the troops of the equipment they need. Wow I bet those Republican talking points just rolled off your tongues and aren't bipartisan efforts great and rewarding.

Hats off to the 20 or so Dems that voted NEA on Reid/Feingold. Great way to announce to Bush and the Republicans that you would rather give him everything he wanted rather than look like you weren't funding the troops. Your help was greatly appreciated in the negotiations between Bush and leadership today.

Hats off to all those above for help they contributed in putting a victory in 08 in jeopardy.

Levin and Obama (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:55:47 PM EST

Get Medals of Freedom for there performances.

I can not imagine supporting him for the nomination.

Worst leadership performance I think I have ever seen.


: My Short List Has Gotten Shorter (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by MO Blue on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:38:04 PM EST

Completely undecided on who I will finally support if Gore does not run. My list of those who I know won't be getting my vote is definitely longer than those who I'm still considering.
For Obama to have any chance of returning to my short list, his September miracle of obtaining veto-proof majorities in the House and the Senate would have to become reality and legislation that would get us out of Iraq before 2009 would have to become law. Based on that criteria, he has two chances IMO - slim and none.

The payoff (none / 0) (#36)
by Alien Abductee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:37:15 PM EST

among Dems is solely going to go to those who will benefit from it personally, like the increasingly Liebermanesque Obama, and the conservatives who need to support the war to hold onto their own seats in conservative regions. But the rest of the party will pay for what they've done.

Maybe it was a needed price to pay to get the majority, recruiting so many conservative candidates like that. And it's true we have got the beginnings of oversight and an end to rubber stamping whatever Bush wants out of it. But in terms of the party as a whole, if Dems don't develop some GOP-style party discipline, and they let themselves keep being directed by the Republican-lite part of the coalition and the selfish actors without pushing back against either influence, there's very few reasons to keep supporting them that I can see. "Crashing the gate" and "taking over the party"? I have yet to see any evidence of any of that happening at all.


Another Bush advantage (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Mimir on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:58:45 PM EST

He is going to stay one step ahead of the Democrats as long as he can continue to read their emails and listen-in on their calls.

See you guys tomorrow (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:04:00 PM EST

Hope something better happens in the mean time. I'm depressed as hell now, I think I'll drink two pots of coffee and bleach the bathroom without mercy. If that doesn't work there's always kudzu and Roundup! Wake me when the American dream returns in some form that looks vaguely familiar.

It puzzles me ... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by chemoelectric on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:24:04 AM EST

It puzzles me how not ending the post-war occupation in Iraq is 'bad' because it is a political loser for the Democrats. To heck with the Democrats. If you want to end the post-war occupation, which is what I want, then that's that.

One thing we've be now seen, by the way, is that the 'Republicans' in Congress have even less spine than the Democrats. These people are so spineless that they will stand behind practically any treachery. Their spinelessness just doesn't show as much, because of the spineless media.

The spine is almost all outside the Beltway.

There is one other possibility (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:29:26 PM EST

Why not let the supplemental pass mostly with Republican votes? At least we wouldn't quite buy the war that way. . .

The Out of Iraq Caucus (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:33:27 PM EST

171 strong, should do this.

They won't.

The problem was making this the test for getting out of IRaq.

Murtha's benchmarks were the BIG problem.

It gave the GOP something to latch on to.

Yep, I said this way back when too.

I am a genius. Noooo, everyone else is stupid.


Okay okay okay, you're a genius okay? (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:35:06 PM EST

I am (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:39:24 PM EST

but not because of this.

A child should have seen this one coming.


You just called me a fetus. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:43:07 PM EST

: I really didn't think it would get this bad (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:51:36 PM EST

before everyone snapped out of it. Hopefully people do wake up before it is too late.

Some Of Us Did (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by MO Blue on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:50:43 PM EST

They just wouldn't listen.


In January (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:36:56 PM EST

I really thought that Bush would be forced to accept Murtha's benchmarks in order to get his money. You saw this whole thing as it would play out.


Talex has a couple of friends at Orange (none / 0) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:31:58 PM EST

I'm very surprised though at how many are starting to preach from the podium that once only belonged to BTD. Think Reid and Pelosi ever read Orange or consider what is said there?

: Too much chaff, methinks. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by oculus on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:36:21 PM EST