Dodd and Feingold Fighting The Good Fight On Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:29:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Senator Feingold writes:

This situation is a collapse for Democrats. . . . {N]ow, as Congress gets ready to send the President a bill that does nothing to get our troops out of Iraq, we are just folding our cards. As one person commented under Greg Sargent’s great post at TPM cafe, "Send the Congressional Dems over to my place for some poker - I could use a windfall right now." This is no time to back down. . . .

Senator Dodd is the only Presidential candidate in the Senate who is not lying down on this:

I'm disappointed that there is no firm deadline in this version of the bill, because I believe that's the only way to responsibly bring this war to an end. I will fight for, and hope that the bill that emerges from conference has, a firm deadline to redeploy our troops.

It won't have a firm deadline of course. But now is the time to redouble our efforts for the only way to end the Iraq Debacle, the Reid-Feingold-Dodd framework of setting a date certain for not funding the Debacle.

< Russian Charged in Litvinenko Poisoning Case | Done Deal: No Timelines in Iraq Supplement >

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.

Dodd and Feingold Fighting The Good Fight On Iraq | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If Reid-Feingold (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:08:03 PM EST

had the unanimous support of the netroots, we might have a shot. But Obama has siphoned off significant support with his BS "strategy." Good on Dodd; he'd make a good president.

But why??? (none / 0) (#2)
by JHFarr on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:11:15 PM EST

You said,

But now is the time to redouble our efforts for the only way to end the Iraq Debacle, the Reid-Feingold-Dodd framework of setting a date certain for not funding the Debacle.

Redouble our efforts? Set a date certain?? Are you completely mad??? The majority party is the Democratic Party, and THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF THE WAR. I would sooner redouble my efforts to levitate a brick.

Wake me when we have a responsible democracy again. (I have a feeling it's going to be a long night.)

It won't work today, it will work in September (none / 0) (#8)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:59:10 PM EST

in my humble opinion. But only if antiwarriors in Congress start the ball rolling and argue their case, and the real progressive netroots publicize and honor them, and attack (and 'punish') those (including Presidential candidates) not on the bandwagon.

"Yes, Mr. Bush, you've forced us into this game, so there you go." Unfortunately, it's the only effective way to deal with the bully.


: This is a reply to something below here n/t (none / 0) (#10)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:59:50 PM EST

No, there's another responsible way (none / 0) (#3)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:19:39 PM EST

to end the war, or at least it's more responsible than voting 'yes' on a war funding bill without an 'out' deadline. And that is to vote 'no'. And argue your case to the American public, and get the 'out now' bandwagon rolling.

In other words, in his statement Dodd is backing down and not taking the game to the level that will get us out:

I'm disappointed that there is no firm deadline in this version of the bill, because I believe that's the only way to responsibly bring this war to an end.

He's backing down in the face of what he thinks will be Bush 'playing chicken with the troops' game, and then covering himself with his need to be 'responsible'. But just voting 'no' is the most responsible course with the harsh choices Bush presents Congress.

Ok I see what (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Warren Terrer on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:36:38 PM EST

your approach to this is. Individual congress critters should just vote no to funding, because the leadership itself won't follow a defunding plan.

I suppose this could work, but it requires getting 50%+ of the house or senate on board. I don't see that as any easier a task than getting Reid and Pelosi on board.

However, if I were a senator or congressman, I would be telling my constituents, the party leadership, and the president that whatever funding bill passes, I will not vote in favor of another war funding bill ever, no matter what goodies it might contain that Dems want. I guess that's why I'm not a politician.


If I were a senator or congressman.... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:47:45 PM EST

I'd lock all the other congress-critters in the capital and not let them out until they ended the occupation.

If that didn't work I'd resign, with my dignity intact, after I got out on bail of course.

I'm so so tired of congress and the executive branches playing their little government games while the bloody occupation rolls on.....


It won't work today, it will work in September (none / 0) (#11)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:00:33 PM EST

What do you see (none / 0) (#13)
by Warren Terrer on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:11:35 PM EST

happening between now and September that hasn't happened already that will convince more Dems, like Webb and Tester, to vote no on funding?


Senate irrelevant, but 'surge' (none / 0) (#15)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:45:48 PM EST

failure will pressure the many House Dems (I think) who've agreed to General Petraus and much of MSM punditocracy's request to 'wait till September' before assessing the surge's inevitable failure. At that time we'll likely (also) see several Republicans jump off of Bush's team on this issue, which helps provide cover for moderate Democrats. And we already have 171 House Democrats and 51% of the Democratic public -- see the late April NY Times poll in pollingreport.com (Iraq) -- who agree with "just vote 'no'." The inevitable growth of the latter number will help increase the former.

You know what's really amazing, that talkleft is about the only place that's actually discussing the 'in play' Iraq funding situation in the House and more generally in Congress. Everywhere else progressive bloggers seem to have jumped at lamenting prematurely.


: The Surge (none / 0) (#29)
by squeaky on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:08:16 PM EST

Has already failed. The current rhetoric is to use Friedman units. That has been going on for a long time and will go on for a long time.
What makes you think that in September congress will wake from their Friedman slumber?

Another, even safer responsible path (none / 0) (#4)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:23:50 PM EST

is to fight for short-leash (every 2/3 months) funding, if Congress is going to fund the nightmare. Frequent 'opportunities' to put themselves on record funding the failed, unpopular war should eventually get a majority saying 'no'.

The House short-leash bill sent over to the Senate was (realistically, compared to what many of us expected) great. It's a great bill to still rally behind.


Gosh I Wish People (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by talex on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:05:09 PM EST

would read the news and stay current.

First of all the Senate would not have approved of the House bill. That has been all over the news ever since the House passed their bill.

Not keeping up with what is happening is one of the reasons the left does not get the kind of respect we want from congress.

Secondly:

"Certainly we'll do it in July when Mr. Murtha's bill is on the floor," Hoyer said.
He was referring to Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has led efforts in the House of Representatives to end U.S. combat involvement in the Iraq war. In July, Murtha will shepherd a military funding bill through the House for the next fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1.
Link

That's two months away.


Just For The Record (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by talex on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:10:25 PM EST

CNN Poll 5/4-6/07

"One proposal would not provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to withdraw all its troops by March 2008. Would you favor or oppose that bill?"
Favor 39%
Oppose 60%
Unsure 2%
Link

Reid-Feingold is a big hit with the public - 60% Opposed


That's not an accurate (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Warren Terrer on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:13:19 PM EST

description of BTD's proposal. Umpteen posts from him on the subject and you STILL can't get it right.


: Well You Are Right (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by talex on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:24:14 PM EST

I pulled that poll off another blog and now just reading it again I noticed that is says "would not provide additional funds". Reading fast originally I didn't see the 'not'. That isn't what R-F says so I withdraw that post.

Just for the record (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:28:32 PM EST

CNN's poll question...

not provide additional funds for U.S. troops

...and your quoting it here without explanation, is designed to mislead poll respondents into believing a lie.

Misleading by omission is lying, talex.

Defunding The Iraq War Is Supporting The Troops

When Senator Russ Feingold and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid propose cutting off the funding for the war, they are proposing the only thing that can possibly benefit U.S. troops. In fact, there is no way to make any sense of the idea that they could possibly be hurting U.S. troops. The funding is not for the troops.
When President George Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he is quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.
When Senator Barack Obama or Senator Carl Levin claims to want to pressure Bush to end the war, while at the same time promising to fund the war forever in the name of funding the troops, we are being told something that cannot possibly make any sense. The funding is not for the troops. It is for the war. You can't end the war while providing it. You can't hurt a troop by denying it.

51% of Democrats favor defunding, (none / 0) (#25)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:20:34 PM EST

just saying 'no', as of April 20-24, 2007. And that's with a virtual blackout of this point of view in the MSM, and every major Democrat explicitly rejecting that position.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 20-24, 2007. N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). ...
"The Democrats in Congress have proposed to fund the Iraq war only if the U.S. sets a timetable for troop withdrawal, too. George W. Bush has stated he will veto that proposal. If George W. Bush does veto it, what should the Democrats in Congress do next: should they try to withhold funding for the war until George W. Bush accepts a timetable for troop withdrawal, or should they allow funding for the war, even if there is no timetable?"
ALL adults
Withhold Funding 36%
Allow Funding 56%
Unsure 8%
Republicans
Withhold Funding 12%
Allow Funding 84%
Unsure 4%
Democrats
Withhold Funding 51%
Allow Funding 41%
Unsure 8%
Independents
Withhold Funding 38%
Allow Funding 52%
Unsure 10%

What if many Democrats in Congress -- god forbid the 'leadership' which seems to want to pass a bill mostly Republican votes -- were to start getting into the mass media and advocating "Enough, it's time not to give the bully any more lunch money."


And since you are an idiot (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:56:48 PM EST

You missed my evisceration of that poll question.

Let's see if a genius like you can see what is wrong with it?

You are truly the stupidest person I have encountered in some time.


: So Where Is The Link??? (1.00 / 1) (#30)
by talex on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:27:54 PM EST

You are truly the stupidest person I have encountered in some time.
Try looking in the mirror. Someone who advocates for something that has no chance of happening is STUPID.
They only call other people stupid because they themselves lack the facilities to say anything intelligent.

Read better: I'm advocating something here (none / 0) (#16)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:55:37 PM EST

I know the news, and both sides can play 'the X will not accept' game, and I sure want the more antiwar House to be as intransigent as hell. The House should not accept the 'Senate' bill, and if the Senate can't deal with that, then we've just about defunded the war. I'm (obviously) advocating that the House 'get tough' and not accept the leadership 'compromise' which encapsulates the Senate's more conciliatory, less anti-Bush, less antiwar orientation.


Now You (none / 0) (#22)
by talex on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:30:58 PM EST

explain yourself a little better. You did not make those points clear in your last post.

I doubt that there won't be a compromise but certainly because things are not yet settled the House is still fighting as Pelosi said on ABC's This Week this last Sunday.


: It's good to hear the House is still fighting (none / 0) (#27)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:48:51 PM EST

but I'm not sure whether I can believe it, with the avalanche of "we lost" in the news and on the blogs.

And, by the way, that link (none / 0) (#17)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:03:48 PM EST

is from May 23, 2007, so I think I can be forgiven for not finding it. It's a very informative link, and very believable, despite coming from the future.


May 23 (none / 0) (#23)
by talex on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:34:35 PM EST

is not the point. It is that it is on the web today. It was findable. I found it.

I read articles in magazines all the time that are dated forward to coincide with the edition date. But they are still readable prior to the edition date.

Just a reminder. Even with a compromise this issue will come up again in July.


I should've marked my post 'snark' (none / 0) (#24)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:11:54 PM EST

By the way, Harry Reid is making noises that the Senate will have some sort of vote in September (too?). July is too soon, and my understanding is that July would be a defense bill that would include all Iraq funding for the next fiscal year (i.e., there won't be any more supplemental funding bills).


: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by talex on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:29:50 PM EST

July will be the Defense Bill. The way I understand it with the now sketchy info available is that Murtha will put forward a bill he has.
Now my hope is that the bill will be put forward so we can keep up this fight but my guess is that it would not be included in the Defense bill. Also I sure do not want to see Iraq included in the final Defense Bill either. I just as soon see it remain in supplements as I'm sure everyone would.
Who was to think that after all these years bashing Bush for not including Iraq in the regular defense bill that we would now want it to remain a supplemental!!

Yes, I saw Russ' communique (none / 0) (#7)
by profmarcus on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:56:14 PM EST

and since i've been feeling bleak about the dems' poor performance on most everything, including iraq, i needed a little inspiration...

so, if we're going to continue to "fight the good fight," what tools are we left with...? yes, the usual... blogging, phone calls, emails, faxes, petitions, letters to the editor... we keep pushing this boulder up the hill and it keeps rolling back down... guess we gotta keep pushin', eh...?

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Because this is such a Political No Brainer (none / 0) (#9)
by Stewieeeee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:59:23 PM EST

I am predicting a significant bump in Dodd's poll numbers next month.

Quietly doubling combat troop numbers. (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:26:08 PM EST

Second Iraq Troop Surge Starts
Hearst Newspapers, Monday 21 May 2007

Washington - The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.
This "second surge" of troops in Iraq, which is being executed by extending tours for brigades already there and by deploying more units, could boost the number of combat troops to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year. When support troops are included, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 - the most ever - by the end of the year.
The efforts to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq are being carried out without the fanfare that accompanied President Bush's initial troop surge in January.

They'd better get busy on that veto proof majority, with all those flipped rethugs that are turning on Bush.

Or is it all those flipped rethugs that are keeping quiet and backing Bush?