Congressional Dems Deny The Obvious on Iraq Supplemental

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:16:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I find this TPM Cafe story surreal:

[T]he offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.

That's great and all but the fact is the Dems backed down on a firm withdrawal date in the bill Bush vetoed. Why all the gnashing of teeth now?

Let's be clear, the Dems bill did not set a firm deadline and no binding conditions that the President could not waive. The only theoretically firm deadline was that troop withdrawal START, without saying how many, in October. Frankly, why Bush vetoed it is inexplicable to me. Sure he'll get the Dems to cave here but he let the Dems escape immediate co-ownership of the war.

All this DRAMA about whether the Dems backed down is funny. But the need to end the Iraq War is not. The Reid-Feingold framework which, for those of you just tuning in, does NOT require passage of a bill, is the way out. Announce April 1, 2008 as the date certain for NOT funding the war. Forget about strings, conditions, benchmarks and goals. None of that matter to Bush.

Close the purse. Say it now so you can do it then.

< New York to Introduce Wrongful Conviction Legislation Today | Doing All They Can on Iraq >

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.

Congressional Dems Deny The Obvious on Iraq Supplemental | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why all the gnashing of teeth now? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Dadler on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:18:56 AM EST

A malady known as collective mental retardation.

: Among most of the public (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:25:23 AM EST

who doesn't understand the complicity going on?

If Dems extract timetables from the bill (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by annefrank on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:51:34 AM EST

they're giving Repubs a gift who'll just declare "victory" in 08, redeploy some troops and take responsibiity for "ending the war."

If? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:56:11 AM EST

It already happened in the bill they sent to Bush.

Hello?


: Hello yourself! (none / 0) (#24)
by annefrank on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:49:09 AM EST

What was the April Fool's date for?

: Dems did NOT extract timetable (none / 0) (#28)
by annefrank on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:41:30 AM EST

This was a WaPo lie.

Inexplicable (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by chemoelectric on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:57:19 AM EST

Frankly, why Bush vetoed it is inexplicable to me.

This sort of thing is a sure sign that one doesn't understand all the factors in the situation. In this case it is the most important factor, which is Bush's severe (and widely recognized) psychiatric condition. Bush's veto was completely assured, for reasons that are pretty much obvious.

This is pretty scary, because defunding won't necessarily be enough, when dealing with this guy. He might literally let the soldiers starve.

Sure sure Dr. Freud (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:07:07 PM EST

I hate that type of comment. You hjave no idea what Bush's mental condition is.

When he fired Rummy, did you predict that too? When he created a Department of Homeland Security? When he agreed to the 9/11 Commission?

You are just talking.


: Hate it at your own risk (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by chemoelectric on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:59:45 PM EST

Hate it at your own risk. I have an excellent idea about Bush's mental condition.
Rummy BTW is one of Cheney's guys, not one of Bush's. It surprised me when he let Rummy go but it didn't at all shock me. It certainly would have shocked me, though, had Bush signed this bill after having gone to so much trouble to say ahead of time that he was going to veto it; that would have been absolutely humiliating for him.
Bush right now is putting more troops into Iraq largely because the American people want them out of Iraq.

I think he vetoed it (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Warren Terrer on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:57:28 AM EST

because he's convinced he can get what he wants without even a semblance of a string attached. That's important to a guy like The Decider, aka The Commander Guy.

Is he wrong? The MSM is happily spinning it as "Dems cut off funding to troops", so he's half way to victory on this already.

This is your mistake (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:05:36 PM EST

The Media spin is irrelevant.

The American People do not care what the Beltway say or thinks on Iraq.

Get us out and Dems will get a big boost.


: It would be my mistake (none / 0) (#27)
by Warren Terrer on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:48:23 AM EST

if I were the one listening to the media spin and internalizing it. I am not. But are the Dems?
Your writings here indicate you think the Dems listen to the media a lot less than they used to. I hope you are correct. I hope they are not listening to the media on this particular issue.

More Son of Stay the Course (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:09:52 PM EST

The voices in the Big Brother Broadcast frame our options in Iraq as "total victory" or "surrender." Yet they can't provide a coherent definition of what total victory might consist, largely because such a thing is not achievable.
We're not at war with Iraq, Iraq is at war with itself and we're stuck in the middle of it. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism; it's the central front in the Iraqi civil war.
Iraq is not going to surrender to us, and we're not going to lay down our arms and surrender to Iraq or anyone else.
The people objecting to withdrawal timelines are the same folks who fork tongued us into invading Iraq in the first place and then denied for years that we had become bogged down in an insurgency and a civil war.
They didn't know what they were talking about then and they don't know what they're talking about now. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is not setting a date for failure.
Settling for an open ended new "way forward" that's really just "son of stay the course" is a sure fire recipe for more of the same kind of failure the Bush administration has given us for over four years.

--Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired)

: Commander Huber doesn't get enough (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by TexDem on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:12:24 PM EST

recognition. He's does Pen and Sword, MyLeftWing, DailyKos and atlargely that I know and only has 3-7 commenters making 1-4 comments. Great writer with lots of dead on points.

Some observations on the veto, etc. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by walt on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:35:25 PM EST

Sen. Reid doesn't actually have a majority; the headcount is 49 D, 49 R, 2 I.

Speaker Pelosi has a solid majority & can control any legislation in the House of Representatives.

The Speaker brought the Iraq Supplemental up on a vote to over-ride the veto as quickly as possible.

It would be helpful if a House staffer, or similar rules expert, could comment on the future of that legislation. Can the Iraq Supplemental be brought up again, or is it dead for the 110th Congress? If one of the GOoPerz throws some Bu$hKorp version or variant of a "clean" funding bill in the hopper, I know that the Chairman of the Appropriations can sit on it for 30 days. And I know that the Speaker can set up, shall we say, 30 minutes debate for each representative on such a bill after it comes onto the floor (that's about 15 days of just Democratic Party commentaries, even if the Rs yield their times).

Similarly with the Senate: can Sen. Reid just wait? Is there anything Sen. McConnell can do to start another Iraq occupation funding bill? (I doubt it because all appropriation bills must originate in the House.)

Along the lines of Big Tent Democrat's NO funding approach, it seems as if Speaker Pelosi can just do nothing for well over 30 days. Would that make "Little Boots" stamp his cowboy-shod feet & throw a few public temper trantrums? Perhaps Bu$h xliii has "mis-underestimated" his worthy opposition?

Sometimes there may be virtue in a "do nothing" Congress--especially by design.

I think Bush's ego vetoed (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:24:09 PM EST

I think he may have been encouraged to veto by those around him because giving a date when redeployment would have started places a date when relief begins for the American people who hate the Iraq War and want out before this really does hurt as bad as Vietnam did. When no relief came in October though the public would have been even angrier and the good guy Democrats the victims of EVIL Republican Bush. It could have been good for elections in that respect.

Frankly, why Bush vetoed it (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Lora on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:38:37 PM EST

would be more explicable if you realize that he and his neocon friends and their profit-driven corporations do NOT want the war to end.

: And some ::democrats:: (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:56:39 PM EST

: Huh? (none / 0) (#19)
by andgarden on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:57:25 PM EST

You assume that the supplemental would actually have ended the war.

Too simple for them (4.00 / 1) (#11)
by TexDem on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:14:34 PM EST

to understand.

They understand. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:55:20 PM EST

They try to complicate it to give themselves an excuse for not doing it.


: And they fool themselves (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:56:32 PM EST

into thinking nobody else understands.

But what happens on the Date Certain? (none / 0) (#20)
by Demi Moaned on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:34:47 PM EST

I've asked this question before and haven't gotten any responses so maybe it's not considered a worthwhile question. But I can't honestly promote this strategy to others without being able to explain this point.

OK. Reid-Feingold sets 3/31/08 as the Date Certain (DC). Congress passes a bill funding the war through the DC. They loudly and frequently remind people that the DC is approaching and no more funds will be forthcoming after that.

Bush signs the bill. He continues the same nonsensical rhetoric and does nothing to reduce troop strength or in any way withdraw from Iraq.

We all know that an orderly withdrawal takes time-- maybe as much as a year.

The DC arrives (or practically speaking we're 2 or 3 months out from the DC) and Bush requests more funding.

The Democrats in Congress can honestly say that they meant it about the DC and will not provide funds.

But otherwise, how is it different from the situation today. To withdraw will require more funds. How is the war ended by the DC?

What am I missing?

Normal DOD and Pentagon budgets (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:47:19 PM EST

The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years. There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without another emergency supplemental.

"Since 9/11, Congress has passed at least one emergency bill to cover war costs, making supplemental spending the method of choice for the majority of funding for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror," Alexander added. "Of the $510 billion spent thus far, $331.8 billion (about 65 percent) has come from supplemental spending legislation. If the so-called "bridge fund" included in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill is included, the total rises to $401.8 billion. That means nearly 80 percent of all funding for these wars was the result of emergency and supplemental spending, not regular budgetary means."
The total funds requested by the Defense Department for emergency spending is $163.4 billion, including $70 billion already provided as part of DOD's regular fiscal year appropriations plus a new supplemental request of $93.4 billion.
"If enacted, DOD's funding would increase by 40 percent above the previous year and would more than double from the FY2004 funding level," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report says.

--War And Occupation Funding: More Cooking The Books By Bush And Pentagon?


Funding the withdrawal (none / 0) (#22)
by Demi Moaned on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:29:51 AM EST

But if, as you say, the withdrawal itself needs no funding, why did the Out of Iraq Caucus propose a bill that would fund the withdrawal?


When? What bill? (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:58:22 AM EST

Before any bill went to the floor in the House (none / 0) (#25)
by Demi Moaned on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:18:32 PM EST

there was a big debate within the caucus over what the provisions of the bill should be.

The OOIC was advocating an approach that they called 'fully funding the withdrawal'. Their approach was rejected, but clearly these committed anti-War legislators thought that some funds would be needed in order for withdrawal to happen.


: Probably a good thing it was rejected. (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:47:05 AM EST

Why give him any money when you know he's already got more than he needs and has been cooking his books and lining his pockets with your money for years?