A couple of days ago I wrote:
Here's my thinking on this now, whether you agree with me or not on the NOT funding option, what else is there to try? IF you want to extract political capital, you have to try, or look like you are trying to end the Debacle, by the only means available. So, for moral, pragmatic and politically craven reasons, I urge the Dem Leadership to try to end the war, by announcing a date certain when the Debacle willnot be funded.
Heck, even if the strategy is overcome by a motion to discharge, as some suggest, at least most Dems will be able to tell their constituents and the country that they did all they could. And the people who will own the war will have their names attached to such motion to discharge. Accountability at least. If not results.
Our leading Presidential candidates have now either strongly urged this approach or have voted for it. Our Dem leaders in the House have worked for this approach. In some ways, the Democrats who will be on the top of our tickets in 2008 and our Party leaders have begun to make this the Party policy, whether some like it or not.
And what is the strategy I propose? One more time:
This is a preemptive post, because I am positive that the naysayer will trot out the same critiques about the NOT funding the Debacle approach that was used when Feingold first proposed his Not Funding plan in January. To wit, we don't have the votes, McConnell will filibuster, Bush will veto. My response remains:
I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.
Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.
But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that it will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that political battle too.
This approach is perfectly consistent with the so called "short leash" plan, where the Debacle will be funded in 3 month intervals. But it is only consistent if BOTH are done. The intention to NOT fund the war after March 31, 2008 must be made the Dem position now.
The short leash must be pulled to a stop on March 31, 2008.
Say it now so you can end it then. If you do not say it now, then you can't end it on March 31, 2008.
This approach has the following virtues: (1) you are funding the troops in the field; (2) you are giving the Surge a chance to work; (3) you are laying out a plan the American People support; and most importantly, (4)you can end the Debacle and bring our troops home.
Now if your goal is to RUN on the Debacle (which is unattainable in my opinion, the ruse is too easily seen through) then you won't like this plan.
But if you want to run as the Party that ended the Debacle, or at least the Party that did everything it could to end the Debacle, then you must adopt the NOT funding plan. That means Reid-Feingold.
