Done Deal: No Timelines in Iraq Supplement

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:38:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

From Greg Sargent:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will present a plan to House Democrats for a war funding bill that won't include a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but will feature benchmarks with consequences, according to Democratic leadership aides...

The Warner Deal. I told . . . Sorry.

Now for the good news. Harry Reid said:

We now have the timeline that the Republicans have set, and that’s this September. And that’s the very least, and then as I’ve indicated –the Defense authorization– we’re going to start right where we’ve left off with this bill, continuing our push to change direction in the War on Iraq."

I explained in March that the House Iraq Supplemental was a terrible strategy for ending the war. There is one way to do this - NOT funding the war on a date certain and announcing that as far ahead as possible. The Reid-Feingold-Dodd framework. Can we now work on the one actual way to end the Debacle now? Leader Reid? Speaker Pelosi? Let's get to work.

Update [2007-5-22 18:47:15 by Big Tent Democrat]: Feingold reaction:

UPDATE:. . . To answer those of you who asked if I would support a supplemental without binding language to end the war, the answer is no. I think this conference report is an affront to the will of the American people and does nothing to help change course in Iraq. . . . To those of you who want to know what I plan to do next, I am already looking for the next opportunity to push the Feingold-Reid legislation. We’re expecting to take up a defense bill in the floor period following the Memorial Day recess, and that may be the best opportunity to keep pressing the Senate to get on the right side of history and end this war.

< Dodd and Feingold Fighting The Good Fight On Iraq | Bomb Threat at Jerry Falwell's Funeral >

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.

Done Deal: No Timelines in Iraq Supplement | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I still hope that our 171 and 20 (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:14:49 PM EST

vote NO on this bill.

Give it up. (4.88 / 9) (#11)
by dkmich on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:10:23 PM EST

You have the Democratic Party confused with somebody who cares. They are doing what they are doing because that is what they want to do. They sold us out on the war, trade and immigration. They are owned by the same monied interests as the Republicans. Different sides of the same coin.

I never vote for comments... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by kdog on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:19:53 PM EST

but that was a 5 dkmich.

Besides, it's an occupation now. We won and are sticking around, soldiers and Iraqi civilians be damned, until the powers that be say otherwise.


And it's (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Alien Abductee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:23:43 PM EST

well and truly sinking in now at dkos. Not a pretty sight.

BTW did I only dream I posted a long comment here above?


Re: not a pretty sight (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:55:30 PM EST

Ummm... you have a gift for understatement.


The death of illusion (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by Alien Abductee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:57:42 PM EST

is never pretty. Talex has his work cut out for him there too.


Hah. Jeeze. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 08:19:41 PM EST

Easy... easy. I have to clean off the monitor again.

talex is timing the elephant stampede. ;-)


I vote for (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Alien Abductee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 08:25:53 PM EST

this one.

Talex backdoor Trojan
packed with ASPack
Damage Level: Low

: Too funny! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 08:28:16 PM EST

What was that about (none / 0) (#30)
by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 09:34:22 PM EST

Fineman reporting Bush is going to try to take back some of the consessions he made in the negotiations, that I noticed in one of the comments over there? Have you seen anything on this?


Sinking in? Yes and No (none / 0) (#35)
by dkmich on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:31:56 AM EST

They are still primarily focused on the war. Same at MyDD. One single issue is much easier to excuse than three mighty FUs in one fell swoop.


Some of the leadership maybe. (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:13:36 PM EST

Not most of the people in the democratic party. That is where it differs from the GOP.


What is Reid talking about? (1.00 / 2) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:19:58 PM EST

we're going to start right where we've left off with this bill, continuing our push to change direction in the War on Iraq

He has already announced the war lost. So why should the terrorist do anything but wait for the Demos to formally surrender.

Reid was talking about the (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:29:07 PM EST

political war over funding the continuance of the debacle. Not the occupation of Iraq. Occupations can't be "won" without killing nearly the whole occupied country.

The "war" ended 4 years ago. You remember - a monkey on a boat announced the end of it.

It's been an illegal occupation and debacle that has killed nearly a million people with your support, mostly children and women, ever since.

But you knew all that, jim. You've been cheering it all along.


: The other war... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:54:59 PM EST

the war for the minds of the the 26 percenters was won long before the invasion began. It was short battle, since the losers had so little to offer. Which is probably why some of them haven't noticed yet.

Two things: (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by Warren Terrer on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:44:13 PM EST

Reid said 'If the President doesn't change course, the war is lost'. So he's still clinging to the idea that the president will change course, which he won't.
You don't understand the meaning of the word surrender. Ending the war and withdrawing isn't surrendering. Are you just here to spout GOP talking points? Apparently, since you've spouted at least 2 in this comment. Try thinking, for a change.

you have to ask? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by Molly Bloom on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:27:48 PM EST

Are you just here to spout GOP talking points?

Usually (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Warren Terrer on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:40:45 PM EST

he makes a feeble effort at appearing to have a thought or two independent of an underlying GOP talking point. But this time he's not even trying.


: Maybe he is phoning it in... (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by Molly Bloom on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:44:24 PM EST

WT - No. He said, (none / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 10:49:19 PM EST

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.

I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev

`I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- [know] this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,'' said Reid, a Nevada Democrat

Boston Globe


Wrong again (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Warren Terrer on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:25:22 PM EST

Jim: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/19/reid-iraq-war-is-lost/


Still. (none / 0) (#36)
by Edger on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:47:25 AM EST

WT (none / 0) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:49:16 AM EST

So all these people were just funning us??

Have another koolaid.


: Whatever (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:15:04 AM EST

goal Bush had in mind in Iraq is lost, and was lost long ago.
Unless an Iranian ally and Shia theocracy was his goal.

On the contrary (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Molly Bloom on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:09:21 PM EST

We went in to get the WMD and topple Saddam. There were no WMD, and Saddam was toppled. The Democrats are declaring victory and moving on. The GOP on the other hand, want to stay and die in a civil war.

If with our superior firepower we cannot occupy Iraq, what makes you think a 2nd rate Al Qaida that is, according to the experts, about 7% of the groups fighting there, can occupy Iraq?

can't follow (none / 0) (#1)
by orionATL on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:10:27 PM EST

i'm having trouble understanding this post.

it's short and there's too much missing that i don't understand.

does all this bode well or ill for the future?

are the two houses' positions opposed but expected to be reconciled at some future point?

Neither ill nor well (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:39:19 PM EST

The point is the regular appropriation is now the battleground and THIS TIME, let's do it right from the start -

Announce a date certain for NOt funding.

Heck, make it a clean bill this time,


"Clean" ... ? (none / 0) (#14)
by JanL on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:20:00 PM EST

BTD, will this come up for a vote before or after the Iraqi "government" takes a 2 month vacation? I gather they are all thinking the R's will throw in with them in September?


I don't understand your comment (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:41:02 PM EST

: Sorry (none / 0) (#24)
by JanL on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:54:30 PM EST

I was not clear with my question...which is, after this summer, do they (Dems) believe the Repub's will come cowering and ready to back timelines for withdrawing?

Harry Reid doesn't make sense (none / 0) (#4)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:28:44 PM EST

There's a vote now on the supplemental, and then a vote in July for the new fiscal year defense bill. My understanding is the second bill will include funding for the Iraq occupation till 9/30/08.

I don't see a meaningful September vote. Does he mean another vote on Feingold-Reid, which Bush will then veto? What a load of b.s. that would be.

Anyway, we need a meaningful ($$$) vote in September, which the House 'short-leash' bill had provided. I think July is too early, and Bush will win whatever confrontation the Dems have planned.

Without that July vote, the Democrats will have effectively funded the occupation till Bush leaves office.

: Reid is insane. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by fafnir on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:33:23 PM EST

Putting language to end the occupation into the mandatory Defense fiscal appropriation bill is political suicide. Just ask Newt.
If the Dems do this, Bush would likely force a partial government shutdown by vetoing the Defense bill and any continuing resolutions.
The Dems are blowing the best opportunity to end this disaster. Supplemental appropriations are not mandatory. Not sending a bill forward achieves the desired outcome of ending the occupation.
If the Dems were worried about "not funding the troops" (whatever that means) by not passing Bush's non-mandatory supplemental appropriation, just wait and see what happens when Reid poisons the Defense bill.

: Should say 'with that July vote' n/t (none / 0) (#6)
by fairleft on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:29:45 PM EST

Funding (none / 0) (#16)
by jarober on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:34:31 PM EST

To this:

"political war over funding the continuance of the debacle. Not the occupation of Iraq. Occupations can't be "won" without killing nearly the whole occupied country."

Wow - you mean that there are no:

-- Southerners
-- Germans
-- Japanese
-- South Vietnamese

left alive? Edger should become a historian - the rest of us have missed something.

On the bill: The Dems will not do a "no bill defunding" for a simple reason: Reid and Pelosi know that they'll share blame for the live shots of the "Last helicopter out of Iraq" that will be the end result of that.

As someone noted up-thread, The Dems aren't serious about this. It's all about short term political advantage.

Each one of those (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Warren Terrer on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:47:29 PM EST

occupations could have turned into a popular resistance like in Iraq had they been managed by Bush. Fortunately, they were not.

As for South Vietnam, that wasn't an occupation, although it was close. And no, there aren't any South Vietnamese any more, so your point is moot.


WT (1.00 / 1) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 10:50:49 PM EST

Three million dead in SOUTH Vietnam would disagree.


: You truly are (none / 0) (#39)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:31:47 AM EST

desperate. Read the context of the original post. He's talking about the US occupation of those countries, implying that the US was occupying South Vietnam. I say it wasn't an occupation by the US, but it was close.
How does implying that the US killed 3 million in South Vietnam make your case for anything?

Well (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:48:51 PM EST

I'll leave you to try to figure it out for yourself james. You're smart enough, no? Or do you really need a moonbat to explain it to you? Again. Besides, your history of comprehension hasn't been all that encouraging.


Um... (none / 0) (#33)
by Dadler on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:13:19 PM EST

First, I don't think it fair to take the "whole entire country" literally. Come on, you know what they meant. Too much killing. That it's a no-win situation. Second, in all of your examples, massive killing and destruction were prerequisites to occupation -- for example, you remember the whole nuclear bomb thing in Japan, right? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And Tokyo carpet bombed into fiery hell? Hello?

Certainly killing and destruction ("shock and awe") preceded our occupation of Iraq. However, we sort of face that whole "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, never attatcked us, was no threat to us" problem. Makes the occupation a tad nastier. No?
