Doing All They Can on Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:54:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In responding to Jon Chait's argument that the Left Blogs take it easy on each other, Atrios writes:

If The Left suddenly became all powerful and was successful at promoting views and legislation I disagreed with I'd certainly be more critical of it.

Let me prove Atrios right by criticizing a view he is promoting:

The important thing, politically, is for the public to understand that the Democrats are doing what they can to stop CooCoo's war. And, sadly, "what they can" does have to take into account the fact that they have 51 senators and only a slim House majority, especially once one excludes the wanker caucus.

Atrios' underlying assumption is wrong. The Democrats are NOT doing everything Congressional control permits to end the Iraq Debacle. Whether Atrios likes it or not, the Blue Dogs are part of their caucus and if it is the Blue Dogs that are the problem, then DEMOCRATS are the problem.

I happen to think the problem is bigger than that. I think the Congressional Dems, the Media, MoveOn and the Netroots simply do not understand the reality of the situation - Bush and the Republicans will never agree to end the Iraq Debacle. "Ratcheting up the pressure" and "peeling off Republicans" is not going to happen.

I'll say it again - there is one way for Dems to do all they can to end the Iraq Debacle - NOT funding after an announced date certain. Yes, the Reid-Feingold framework which, I repeat, does not require passage. When the Netroots, the Media, and Congressional Democrats understand this is the only way, when they understand Democrats will be held responsible by the American People for NOT ending the Debacle, then maybe they will learn to embrace the Reid-Feingold framework.

< Congressional Dems Deny The Obvious on Iraq Supplemental | How a Real Department Of Justice Would Operate >

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.

Doing All They Can on Iraq | 50 comments (50 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Head In the Clouds (5.00 / 9) (#1)
by squeaky on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:15:28 PM EST

In responding to Jon Chait's argument that the Left Blogs take it easy on each other

Obviously Chait is wholly unfamiliar with your writing.

He's mentioned in a comment (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by TexDem on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:22:21 PM EST

in Greg Sargent's TPM Horse's Mouth.

dbf: there's another approach that doesn't require Bush to sign or overriding a veto.
Armando at Talkleft has been arguing the following. Announce far in advance that they are NOT funding after, say, March 2008. Fund it in increments between now and then and then on that date, send Bush a funding bill with mandatory withdrawal and let him veto it.
That doesn't require a veto override, just some balls.
Any reason, other than the nutsack deficit, why the Dems can't do that?
Posted by: Disturbance
Date: May 3, 2007 01:01 PM

He's getting famous. Now if they'll only listen.


I think Armando has done an excellent (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:41:16 PM EST

job on this issue. I found my way here really out of desperation but was impressed with how well thought out his stand is on so many different levels. It works, and it even works for desperate military family members. The thing that is the most crazy making for us in the military is Bush's war without end, war without goals, just WAR, blood, death, killing. Will we be able to stand Armando famous though ;)?


: Iraqis want us out too. (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by TexDem on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:03:18 PM EST

Over on Big Orange clammyc has a post showing how much they want us out.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/3/121034/1314

And I Didn't Get An Answer (none / 0) (#48)
by CauseDisturbance on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:31:06 AM EST

Last time I checked those comments no one had posted a reason why the Dems can't do Armando's plan. I've posted it a few other places with the same result.


: And what do you conclude from that? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:20:42 AM EST

As I said before (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by TexDem on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:17:03 PM EST

It's too simple for them to understand. It has to be convoluted for them.

Ok, here's what this sounds like (5.00 / 5) (#4)
by andgarden on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:41:14 PM EST

There are many people in America who would like to lose weight. I include myself in this group. The easiest option for them would be to east less, but instead they wait around for a magic pill that will solve all of their problems.

Congressional Democrats are waiting for a magic pill.

"Ratcheting up the pressure" and (5.00 / 6) (#5)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:53:07 PM EST

"peeling off Republicans" will probably be about as successful as getting rethugs who comment here to repudiate Bush and the Iraq Debacle.

Hasn't happened yet. And probably isn't going to happen. The reality of responsibility it too much to bear, I think. Delusion is easier to deal with.

If only the Dems could ratchet... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Dadler on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:56:30 PM EST

...as well as they screw.

Oliver Stone (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by squeaky on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:17:28 PM EST

Anti-war ad.

Just Bring em home.

You don't think that peeling off (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:31:11 PM EST

Republicans can happen late this summer as Iraq does not improve? I'm unsure (not a good thing to be when it comes to war either, the sure bet is always best bet!) that Republicans wouldn't take Petraeus' advice and drop their support at that time. None of this sounds good to me in reality, I'm only pretending to be able to question things objectively right now or maybe it's sort of an objective desperation.

: It'll be as easy as peeling off Jarobster. (4.20 / 5) (#13)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:45:36 PM EST

There's nothing to peel off.

Not a contrary view, but parallel, perhaps---- (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by walt on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:54:10 PM EST

There is no evidence, at this point, that Sen. Reid & Speaker Pelosi are not preparing to drop the issue of the Iraq Supplemental.

Equally, there is also no evidence that they are attempting to write a compromise.

If Pelosi & Reid agree on a "no bill" response to Bu$hKorp, the entire funding debacle of the Iraq occupation debacle is DOA. No votes are needed, in any context, if the Majority Leader & the Speaker decide to not do anything.

Choosing to not do anything is fairly easy.

It would be an immense pleasure to watch Bu$h xliii, Shooter Cheney, McConnell, Boehner & the usual cast of suspect characters posturing in public as they faunch & faint over the lack of funding for their Iraq occupation. That would very likely push the public opinion polls over the 75 percent mark for those opposed to the Iraq failure, debacle, occupation & escalation.

Yuppers, those "do nothing" Democrats. What a concept.

On this one, I'm Church of BTD (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by seabos84 on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:35:52 PM EST

and it won't compromise my Devout Atheism.

rmm.

ps - I ain't giving a tithe, BTW.

The Democrats are doing the best that is possible (2.50 / 4) (#33)
by eric on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:31:42 PM EST

I am not trying to be mean here, but I must admit that I am growing extremely tired of BTD's harping on this issue. You cannot treat the entire body of Congressional Democrats as a single entity that answers to one mind.

When Atrios says that the Democrats are doing all that they can to end the war, he is correct. They passed the strongest bill possible that had enough votes to pass. Yes, of course the House Leadership could propose a bill that would demand immediate withdrawal, but guess what? That wouldn't pass. Not even close. It would be futile. As such, it would be doing even less to end the occupation because it would be doing nothing.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I also wish we could just pass a veto proof withdrawal bill, but that isn't going to happen.

How can you get tired (none / 0) (#34)
by andgarden on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:37:43 PM EST

of a plan that you obviously don't understand?


What? (none / 0) (#35)
by eric on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:44:46 PM EST

What plan don't I understand? What I am tired of is this notion that the Democrats are one person that isn't doing all that he can. The Democratic leadership is proposing is the strongest language that can pass.

Thanks for the 1, btw. Real classy.


BTD's plan requires no votes (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by andgarden on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:47:49 PM EST

and no bill passed. Apparently you have no idea how it works.


: I gave eric a higher rating because I know (none / 0) (#39)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:51:36 PM EST

from past experience with him that he is trying to understand.

NOT passing a bill (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:49:00 PM EST

is what is needed. Not PASSING a bill.


Number of Votes (1.00 / 4) (#9)
by jarober on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:38:34 PM EST

The problem for you is simple: you just don't have the votes. You have a thin majority in both houses of Congress, and you don't actually have the votes to pass a defunding bill - because you'll lose too much of your own caucus.

You can be frustrated by that, but that's just the way it is.

I don't seem to recall you thinking that it was a bad thing to have a minority in the Senate blocking judicial nominees back in 2004 and 2005 - you liked the minority rules just fine when they ran in your favor.

You won't see an "end the war now" bill pass anytime prior to January 2009, and probably not then, either.

: We don't need the votes (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:42:15 PM EST

We don't need the votes, we don't need the votes.

: The problem for you is simple. (5.00 / 5) (#12)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:44:03 PM EST

You need new reading glasses.
It takes no votes to not pass a bill.
It's complicated, I know.
Try not thinking about it for awhile. You'll get it. And then you'll deny it. Or vice versa.

Sigh (1.00 / 4) (#14)
by jarober on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:52:59 PM EST

You need the votes for a simple reason: If the Dems decide to not pass a funding bill, the withdrawal would be utter chaos - and they would get blamed for everything that came after that. You can complain that it would be unfair, but that's how it would play out. Your Congressional leadership understands this, even if you don't.

Which is why you see the "Kabuki Dance" of trying to pass a funding bill that somehow ties the Administration's hands - and that's what you don't have the votes for.

Your desired "pass no funding bill at all" thing simply is not going to happen. It would be political suicide.

We don't need to vote on anything (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:55:51 PM EST

to not fund something. That's the beauty of the House.


Iraq has been political suicide (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:56:35 PM EST

for your party.


Not the point (1.00 / 4) (#17)
by jarober on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:01:53 PM EST

It doesn't really matter whether it has been political suicide for the Republicans. What's relevant to this discussion is this: Doing what "Big Tent" advocates would be very bad for everyone - the soldiers who would be forced to withdraw under adverse conditions, the Iraqis who would be abandoned to their fate, and the Democrats - who would get blamed for all of the above.

Whether you think it would be fair to blame the Democrats doesn't enter into it.


You've got nothing you can back up (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:13:22 PM EST

any of your preprogrammed opinions with. And you seem to have a difficult time with the fact that nobody is buying anymore.

Substantiation, James. It's what people don't do when they can't.

Maybe you need some more rethuglican talking points?

I hope you're better at writing code than you are at whatever is is you come here trying to do.


: Bad link. (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:15:45 PM EST

It's here.

I think it is the point, the only point (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:15:16 PM EST

I want you to know that as long as I have breath it will remain your party's suicide. The only way it becomes the Dems is if they become complicit in giving life to a war found to be based on lies and promoted, even demanded the jailing, torturing, and killing of completely innocent people! This is your suicide.


Sigh (5.00 / 6) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:11:35 PM EST

A Republican's "concern" for Dem political fortunes is not really persuasive to me.


No one is buying? (1.00 / 2) (#23)
by jarober on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:16:55 PM EST

Someone is buying, Edger - if they weren't, the post and thread we are discussing wouldn't exist. There's a reason the Democrats aren't trying what you and "Big Tent" advocate - they are pretty sure what would happen, and they don't like the possible future of it.

If they thought otherwise, they would be doing what you want.

: They will. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:22:50 PM EST

Eventually. Or this will happen. To them. They'll get it. They're slow, but not as delusional as rethugs.

lol (1.00 / 3) (#25)
by jarober on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:31:13 PM EST

You seem to think that the Democrats are smarter than the Republicans; where is the earmark reform they promised? Oh yeah - they decided that being in power was more fun than getting rid of pork. The only difference now from a few months back is the districts into which the majority of the pork flows. Both parties are equally corrupt at that level, and neither can see the electorate getting mad very well. Bear in mind that many of the committee chairs now are the same ones who got the axe in 1994. They didn't see that coming any more than the Republican chairs saw it coming in 2006.

There will be no defunding of the war before January 2009 - and probably not then, either. You should start getting prepared to be as disappointed in your majority as I was in the Republican one over the last few years.

Thread Crapping (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by andgarden on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:36:46 PM EST

Do you understand how to reply to a particular message instead of the the entire thread?


So... (1.00 / 3) (#27)
by jarober on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:41:53 PM EST

Being unable to address my points, you want to discuss thread etiquette?


: You have no points. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:44:37 PM EST

Trolls never do.

lol? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:43:39 PM EST

What - you have the giggles now? Heh.

Come back when you can produce evidence of people moving towards supporting your debacle rather than moving away from you in droves.

You really have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?


::supporting:: the debacle in Iraq? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:45:49 PM EST

Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-TN): "When you find out you are going down the wrong way on the interstate, you do not keep going. You get off at the next exit."

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX): "The biggest red herring in this debate is the innuendo that those who don't support expanding the war somehow don't support the troops."

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.): "My conclusion was that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. I think the sectarian violence there requires a political, not a military, solution."

Rep. Heather Wilson, (R-N.M.): an Air Force veteran and member of the House Intelligence Committee, [she] said she would not support increasing troop levels "to do for the Iraqis what the Iraqis will not do for themselves."

February 14, 2007

A group of 10 Republicans this afternoon spoke on the House floor against President's Bush's plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq.

yeesh (1.00 / 3) (#30)
by jarober on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:48:13 PM EST

This isn't about supporting the war, Edger - I'm merely pointing out that you aren't about to get the policy you want, and why you aren't going to get it. That has nothing to do with my position on the war. The fact that you think my position on the war is relevant to this discussion shows that you haven't read any of my posts yet.


: Your comments here are a waste of your time. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:56:26 PM EST

But no one expects you to get that.

: It's perfectly relevant (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by andgarden on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:03:35 PM EST

You're a concern troll.

Sigh (1.00 / 4) (#41)
by jarober on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:55:07 PM EST

The subject of the original post (way back at the top) was the "defund it now" idea, and "Big Tent" seems to think that the Dems can do that without repercussions. I made a simple point, copied here:

You need the votes for a simple reason: If the Dems decide to not pass a funding bill, the withdrawal would be utter chaos - and they would get blamed for everything that came after that. You can complain that it would be unfair, but that's how it would play out. Your Congressional leadership understands this, even if you don't.
Which is why you see the "Kabuki Dance" of trying to pass a funding bill that somehow ties the Administration's hands - and that's what you don't have the votes for.
Your desired "pass no funding bill at all" thing simply is not going to happen. It would be political suicide.

Whether you think the Republicans are (or have already) committed political suicide by backing the war is irrelevant to what I wrote above - if we execute a "leave right now" strategy via a complete fund cutoff, you'll get immediate chaos in Iraq. Democrats will get blamed for that chaos, whether you like it or not - which is why you won't see it happening anytime soon.

: You must be awfully bored today. (none / 0) (#45)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:37:28 PM EST

Your comments are reflecting it. You're repeating stuff that has been refuted as complete idiocy so many times it's hilarious to see someone come in with it again. I guess the rethug pyramid has to have a base somewhere at the end of the memo distribution list though where the large numbers are to farm for donations while the RNC laughs at them.
Heh. Even I'm embarrassed for you.

Umm, yeah (1.00 / 3) (#42)
by jarober on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:21:00 PM EST

Yeah, The Democratic leadership would enjoy that right up to the live video footage of the "last helicopter from Saigon" moment - followed by the live coverage of the slaughter of the Iraqis who have been working with the US.

: If some idiots would accept a finished date (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:21:39 PM EST

we could evacuate Iraqi's while there is still time. As long as we stay the course until the helicopters do have to rescue any Coalition persons we have no opportunity to remove and relocate the Iraqi's that will be in severe danger when total meltdown arrives. I know it is hard for you to understand but we don't have the boots on the ground to hold off a total meltdown and we will be high tailing it to save our own skins. Things aren't getting better in Iraq, things are getting worse and the progression grows daily.

Status? (1.00 / 3) (#46)
by jarober on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:20:42 PM EST

"I know it is hard for you to understand but we don't have the boots on the ground to hold off a total meltdown and we will be high tailing it to save our own skins. Things aren't getting better in Iraq, things are getting worse and the progression grows daily. "

Is that why another 4 provinces are about to be handed over to the Iraqis then?

You have a quota to meet today. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:27:05 PM EST

: Start of a new month (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:10:14 AM EST

Getting ahead on the next paycheck now because we'll all spend the end of this month planning our summer vacations ;)