Out Of Iraq Caucus Embraces Not Funding Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:28:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Sargent:

Dear Mr. President: We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office. . . .

More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.
We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.

Sincerely,
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA); Rep. Barbara Lee (CA); Rep. Maxine Waters (CA); Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA); Rep. Rush Holt (NJ); Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY); Rep. Diane Watson (CA); Rep. Ed Pastor (AZ); Rep. Barney Frank (MA); Rep. Danny Davis (IL); Rep. John Conyers (MI); Rep. John Hall (NY); Rep. Bob Filner (CA); Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY); Rep. Bobby Rush (IL); Rep. Charles Rangel (NY); Rep. Ed Towns (NY); Rep. Paul Hodes (NH); Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO); Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR); Rep. Albert Wynn (MD); Rep. Bill Delahunt (MA); Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC); Rep. G. K. Butterfield (NC); Rep. Hilda Solis (CA); Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY); Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY); Rep. Michael Honda (CA); Rep. Steve Cohen (TN); Rep. Phil Hare (IL); Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (CA); Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL); Rep. James McGovern (MA); Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH); Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL); Rep. Julia Carson (IN); Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA); Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ); Rep. John Olver (MA); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA); Rep. Ed Markey (MA); Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA); Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ); Rep. Rubin Hinojosa (TX); Rep. Pete Stark (CA); Rep. Bobby Scott (VA); Rep. Jim Moran (VA); Rep. Betty McCollum (MN); Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN); Rep. Diana DeGette (CO); Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA); Rep. Artur Davis (AL); Rep. Hank Johnson (GA); Rep. Donald Payne (NJ); Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO); Rep. John Lewis (GA); Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY); Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI); Rep. Gwen Moore (WI); Rep. Keith Ellison (MN); Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI); Rep. Donna Christensen (USVI); Rep. David Scott (GA); Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL); Lois Capps (CA); Steve Rothman (NJ); Elijah Cummings (MD); and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

This is a more radical position than I advocate. I propose setting a date certain, March 31, 2008 as the last day of funding the Debacle.

These Congresspersons have just announced that the LAST funding bill is the last one they will vote for.

< Pentagon Outrageously Attacks Sen. Clinton | Friday Open Thread >

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.

Out Of Iraq Caucus Embraces Not Funding Option | 52 comments (52 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Democracy is on the march (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:40:49 PM EST

in America. Great news!

Ain't it though? (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:50:23 PM EST

And how about Ellen Tauscher!


I guess she decided (none / 0) (#4)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:55:35 PM EST

she really did want to stay in Congress. Props to all of them.


This could be a big thing (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:56:47 PM EST

Seriously. I really think so.


Time for me to catch up on Ron Paul, I guess. (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:57:54 PM EST

Link, anyone?


A dkos favorite (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:59:39 PM EST

Heh. A libertarian racist isolationist
Republican. Voted against the war.

Running for President.


still. I don't see Duncan Hunter or Brian Bilbray (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:01:41 PM EST

listed.


: Heh (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:04:54 PM EST

I can't understand what took them so long (none / 0) (#11)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:09:27 PM EST

They far outnumber the Blue Dogs. Pelosi of course would have to placate the BDs since she might lose them to the Republicans, but there was no reason the Out of Iraq-ers wouldn't have done this earlier other than their own reasonableness and willingness to bow to leadership pressure. Which I guess is now exhausted.

Or is this the next shoe dropping in a strategy planned all along do you think?


I doubt it is strategy (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:12:39 PM EST

But the Senate events of the last days certainly might have pushed this as well.


Is that list (none / 0) (#49)
by taylormattd on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:24:26 PM EST

everyone from the Out of Iraq Caucus? I guess I am wondering whether there are more than the approx 70 reps who would sign onto a "date certain" plan.


: No (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:47:11 PM EST

Nor is it the 142 who voted against the last bill.
Or the 171 who voted for the Mcgovern Amednment.

It's about time! (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by TomStewart on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:43:02 PM EST

I wondered when Congress would figure out that Bush believes they have no say whatsoever in this war, or in the conduct of his administration. The only way to get Bushie to pay attention is to go upside his head with a legislative baseball bat. That what this is, and that's what it takes.

Now, let's see if they have the balls to back it up...

Hot Fun in the Summertime...! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by JanL on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:09:26 PM EST

This is just excellent news, a breath of fresh air. This is gonna cost me some money - I'm again donating to the DNC and many more candidates. Happy to go broke if it gets the point across. All of the pots are beginning to boil, such as the flouting of subpoenas, etc., as well. Time for some accountability, Bu$hCo.

: At least 69 of them . . . (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:10:35 PM EST

And Ellen Tauscher has really come around.
Good for her.

Can't help wondering if it doesn't have a (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:16:08 PM EST

bit to do with classified Petraeus briefing.

Who knows (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:17:25 PM EST

but then that would mean I have been ungenerous towards him.


I'm not sure after all the reading of his stuff (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:21:51 PM EST

that I did today. I realize that I am biased by reading so much of his writings at one sit down and that that doesn't have to have anything to do with what he told them today. I think he may have tried to tell them they were at stage one of a great and fabulous success and they decided to h*ll with this.


And not to allow my curiosity to (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:26:42 PM EST

undo a celebration......YEE HAW! I think this calls for a bottle of wine night.


Much work to do (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:28:37 PM EST

But the argument, the NOT funding argument, is now out there in a strong way.


: Yes, it is, and you should take a bow for (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:41:13 PM EST

working so hard to make this argument. I also credit mcjoan for sticking to the point in the face of so much distraction.

Now saying... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by JanL on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:31:45 PM EST

Per Yahoo news http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
...until November, or 1/2 a Friedman, to be able to see if the McCain plan or "surge" is working. Color me unsurprised on that news.


: This is from your link (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:42:41 PM EST

pertaining to an unclassified portion of the briefing

At one point during the hearing, the video link lapsed, prompting chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., to ask: "Baghdad, can you hear the U.S. Senate?"
An anti-war protestor shouted: "Senate, can you hear the American people?"
Now that's funny

So far, DK has only one dissenting comment (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:24:19 PM EST

to McJoan's post, and no "Impeachniks" have check in.

: Excellent! (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:25:46 PM EST

Everything good happens when I'm at the gym! (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by andgarden on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:36:03 PM EST

YAY!

Go move in for a while . . . (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:40:41 PM EST

: heh (none / 0) (#26)
by andgarden on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:46:32 PM EST

Conspicuously Absent: Dave Obey (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by Ben Masel on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:42:36 PM EST

What domestic spending can Bush offer to bundle this time?

: I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:51:21 PM EST

maybe he's scared of being called an "idiot liberal."

BTD (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Che's Lounge on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:14:55 PM EST

Good news. And here's another fan of yours.

: Good for Rall (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:17:58 PM EST

Iraqis will be the deciders (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by Dadler on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:55:52 PM EST

A great piece by Marjorie Cohn.

War in the Middle East could end for all time (1.00 / 2) (#44)
by truthteller on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 03:49:28 AM EST

Lets see......pull out of Iraq...show the world that the U.S. can't be trusted. Kill any chance of ending the centuries of bloodshed in the Middle East. Did any of you realize that if you have an Muslim country in the Middle East that is a true democracy......and since no two democracies have ever gone to war with eachother...and when democracy spreads in the region, then war ends there.........gee whiz....can the democrats in congress get their minds around such a common sense concept. Guess not.

http://www.livebreatheanddie.com/2007/05/24/liberals-just-dont-get-it-and-that-scares-me/

: Truthteller (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 10:16:46 AM EST

When we made up lies to invade Iraq and then invaded Iraq killing thousands of innocent Iraqis then tortured people for being in the Baathist party......that was when we made it abundantly clear to the world that the U.S. can't be trusted. We never had a chance of ending the centuries of bloodshed in the Middle East when we haven't ended our own centuries of bloodshed in our own country in our streets and have instead spent the past ten years feeding divisivness and intolerance among our own people. You can't teach what you don't know how to do. Did you realize that Jordan is a Muslim country in the Middle East and very secular and very decent and orderly to its inhabitants? I met a cab driver in San Antonio from the Middle East who was returning there to retire soon. All his family lives there and it is very nice, good quality of life he told me. Your COMMON SENSE FACTS are very cherry picked like so many things are concerning the Iraq War.

: The US occupation of Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by Edger on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:12:49 AM EST

is the cause of the bloodshed right now. That doesn't excuse the brutality of Saddam's regime, but the brutality of Saddam's regime is also not a justification for out-brutalizing him.
The Bush regime has shown clearly to Iraqis and the rest of the world that it cannot be trusted.
May 24, 2007: Bush: If Iraq Says Leave, "We Would Leave."

(The Politico) President Bush said today if the Iraqi government were to ask the United States to leave Iraq, he would grant the request.
"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice,'' the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say leave, we would leave."
Jul 14, 2007: Maliki: Iraq Ready To Stand Up Now; US Can Leave "Anytime It Wants"
[O]ne of [Maliki's] top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.
U.S. KILLING 10,000 IRAQIS EVERY MONTH? OR IS IT MORE?
These thousands of patrols regularly turn into thousands of Iraqi deaths because these patrols are not the "walk in the sun" that they appear to be in our mind's eye

It's nothing to get excited about. (none / 0) (#27)
by yourstruly on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:56:49 PM EST

Should such a bill come to pass, Bush will veto it, and we'll be back to square one, needing 67 votes, or the legislative silence of "no bill", that will lead to the much awaited SCOTUS decision on the matter.

Put those votes on impeachment, and then I'll get excited.

"such a bill"??? (5.00 / 4) (#28)
by andgarden on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:00:35 PM EST

Since you obviously haven't been paying attention, the point is that eventually NO BILL WOULD PASS.


Impeachniks (5.00 / 4) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:06:56 PM EST

What can you do?


Here's the bill in a nutshell (none / 0) (#30)
by yourstruly on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:11:14 PM EST

"""Dear Mr. President: We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office. . . .""

and paraphrasing myself--- "leaving only 67 votes to overcome a veto, or "no bill", etc, etc, etc.

Now, could you explain exactly what it is I'm allegedly not paying attention to? What other options do they have after a veto, which includes the "no bill"/"only support" option? Given my all too apparent awareness of their intent not to send another bill if need be, I can't help but conclude you're mistaken.

anything else?


What veto? (5.00 / 4) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:14:41 PM EST

Give me a break (none / 0) (#32)
by yourstruly on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:31:52 PM EST

It seems to me their clear intent could be expressed both ways, should they get their way.

I didn't read any explicit language in that statement that makes either clear, did you? All Sargent said was what---This could complicate Congress' efforts to pass another war-spending bill this fall that represents anything short of a quick exit from Iraq. The full letter after the jump below. --Greg Sargent

Even he is unclear on how it will play out, just cites complications I am attempting to address.

If a bill is presented containinng this language to Bush, clearly you're are going to deal with a veto, and if no bill makes it into the senate, then the SCOTUS confrontation is on.

How much more clear do I need be? Do you like either scenario?

If you can't or won't address this, then I can't lose what I never had.


What language? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:36:02 PM EST

You clearly do not get it.

They will not vote in favor of any bill that funds the war.

IF 218 say that, there will be no bill.

You simply do not understand what was said.

Sargent is operating from the view that the number stays at 70. The idea is to expand the number to 218.

171 supported the McGovern bill which is the same concept.

This is a major breakthrough conceptually. So major that your mind apparently does not grasp it.


I just made it abundantly clear I do understand (none / 0) (#39)
by yourstruly on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:24:07 PM EST

I addressed the best case scenario for a bill containing that language, the "no bill" option, and the consequences of both, not considering the hurdles that will be confronted in getting such a bill through the senate and onto Bush's desk.

Just because they say they will vote for no bill that doesn't conform to their "no war-funding" language, doesn't exclude the passage of such a bill, does it?

If that happens, what next? Will Harry Reid start using some Gitmo-worthy coercion? At least more sleep deprivation?


Ummm (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:29:28 PM EST

If 218 agree, well, yes it does preclude it. That's the point.


Good God Gurdies (1.00 / 1) (#45)
by yourstruly on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 10:03:15 AM EST

I'm talking about the possibility that a "no war funding" bill hits the floor of the house for a vote, containing funds for withdrawal only as they demanded here.

Are you saying in the event that happens, they will vote against it?

Apparently so.

It doesn't matter which way this goes---no bill, or one containing that language that won't get through the senate, the net result is going to be the same--- more than a few days in the SCOTUS if Bush doesn't get his funding.

Sure, let's add this battle to the already all but certain battle looming on the horizon there, over the exec privilege claims just dropped on the AttorneyGate/contempt charges.

My pov remains unchanged--- try to impeach and remove the bum by the judicially unreviewable and uncontestable right to do so under the constitution, before putting either case before Roberts and Mr "Unitary Exec" cheerleader Scalito, and whatever goons who would follow them.

This is what you anti-impeachniks don't seem to get-- is that your patient (OUR constitution)isn't just bleeding outta the Iraq war wounds, but rather like that dike the little Dutch boy confronted.

You're like a cat who "played" with the mouse that got away too long, when the coup de grace was available.


Listen very carefully (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by taylormattd on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:27:40 PM EST

we are not talking about a bill that says "No more funding".

Rather, we are talking about nothing. About having no bill at all. Zero bills. Nada.

For the war to continue, Congress has to appropriate the money in a bill. This option is to simply not appropriate anything.

Get it? No bill.


: But, but, but... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Edger on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:42:52 PM EST

Where are you going to get the votes to NOT PASS NO BILL???
</exasperated sarcasm>

Good God gurdies? (none / 0) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:17:17 AM EST

Are you saying Bush will veto a bill that provides funds for withdrawal with the troops in the field?

Won't that help your impeachnik views?


What bill? (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:31:56 PM EST

They've already voted for their last appropriation for combat funding. It's a thing of the past. It's gone. Goodbye. Nada. No more.


My qualms about funding to date certain (none / 0) (#42)
by chemoelectric on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:02:21 AM EST

There are problems with date certain. First, it's a worse bargaining position than not funding period. Second, it gives time for whining, pleading, legal-bribery, etc. Third it gives time and funding for the careful unfolding of a plan to break the deadline. Fourth, whatever else.

The de-funding is key. The date certain is a rhetorical vehicle, and maybe this new vehicle is better.

: But (none / 0) (#43)
by squeaky on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:06:09 AM EST

There is a date. October 07 which is when fiscal 08 starts.