A Date Certain For Ending The Iraq Debacle

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:35:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Bush Administration will request the Congress exercise its Spending Power and increase the funding for the Iraq Debacle:

President Bush plans to ask Congress next month for up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq, a White House official said yesterday, a move that appears to reflect increasing administration confidence that it can fend off congressional calls for a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces.
The request -- which would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- is expected to be announced after congressional hearings scheduled for mid-September featuring the two top U.S. officials in Iraq. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker will assess the state of the war and the effect of the new strategy the U.S. military has pursued this year.
. . . Most of the additional funding in a revised supplemental bill would pay for the current counteroffensive in Iraq. . . . The decision to seek about $50 billion more appears to reflect the view in the administration that the counteroffensive will last into the spring of 2008 and will not be shortened by Congress.

I believe this request provides Congress another chance to set an end date to the Iraq Debacle. The Congress must set a date certain for ending funding for Iraq Debacle operations. If they lack the political courage to say no to this funding request, the Congress must insist that this is the LAST request and that there will be no more funding for Iraq Debacle operations after a date certain. I suggest March 31, 2008. The Reid-Feingold framework:

Let me explain again - 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 i t will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that politcal battle too.
Understand this, if you want to end the Iraq Debacle, this is the only way until Bush is not President. If you are not for this for ending the war, tell me what you do support. I think this is the only way. And if you shy away from the only way to end the Debacle, then you really are not for ending the war are you?

< Norman Hsu Continues to Make News | Does Sen. Craig really want a trial? >

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.

A Date Certain For Ending The Iraq Debacle | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well, I won't be shying away (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:15:25 AM EST

I am weary though. If the Dems worry about the message defunding "might" make or "could" make I suggest they worry about the message that howling about the war while funding it makes, and the double bind they but their troops in by talking the reality of this war and then continuing to ensure that the insanity goes on and on!

They need to perceive (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Edger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:14:44 AM EST

a heavy political cost in 2008 for "howling about the war while funding it", but so far they figure that people are so scared of rethugs that they've got enough support and votes next year anyway.

I believe this request provides Congress another chance to set an end date to the Iraq Debacle.

It does that, certainly. But it also gives them another chance to roll over and bare their throats and soft bellies to Bush one more time.

And this will be Bush's reaction. Again...

Democrats in the House and Senate need to perceive a heavy political cost in 2008. Without that what motivation would they have to end the debacle?


I used to think that Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:28:41 AM EST

were smarter about fighting dirty than they appear to be right now. If I were a Republican (and thank God I'm not) I would be jumping all over this hollering about Iraq stunt that the Dems are pulling while continuing to fund it and the majority of the nation wants out of Iraq. I would start out by saying George W Bush a true Republican and led the party astray and then I would use what the Dems are doing to rebuild my Republican base with and show the people that the Dems aren't about principle, they are about what is effortless and easy even if it costs people their lives. Thank God Karl Rove is Bush loyal or this would be happening right now.


: oops again, I really need to proofread (none / 0) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:30:19 AM EST

I meant to type that George W Bush wasn't a true Republican and led the party astray.

oops, double bind they put their troops in (none / 0) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:28:03 AM EST

no coffee yet....lots of typos.


But the Democrats will cave in (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:46:02 AM EST

There is no indication that the Democrats will not cave in to Bush once again. Just as they have done earlier on both Iraq and on FISA. When Saint Petraeus speaks on the Hill the Democrats will run with their tails between their legs.

Congressman Jerry McNerney ran for Congress on an anti-war platform. Now he is saying "signs of progress led him to decide he'll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home". And he says that the only way to end this war is to have a veto-proof coalition of Democrats and Republicans in the Congress who want to end the war. He was pressed on why that is the case when a simple majority of the Congress has the power of purse, yet he remained silent on that issue. Link

I am convinced that the only way out of this morass is to do exactly what Big Tent Democrat has been saying for a long time now.

But the sheepish Democrats will cave in one more time. After all nothing is more scary to them than being labeled as softies. Despite the fact that they were called surrender monkeys in 2006 and still won by opposing the war.

: Not only that (none / 0) (#50)
by Demi Moaned on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:55:07 PM EST

I think that most Democrats in Congress do not want to end the war. Greenwald's articles on Pollack and O'Hanlon have convinced me that this is the mainstream point of view within the Democratic Party. A Feingold, a Dodd, maybe a Reid (and others) are genuinely against the war. A smaller number want to seem to be against the war, but aren't. And the rest we know about.

I read that story (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by andgarden on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:46:26 AM EST

and thought "opportunity!" The Dems will surely capitulate again, though.

I'm starting to come to the reluctant conclusion (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Edger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:29:01 AM EST

that they are not really capitulating. That instead they are doing exactly what they want to do, knowing that the electorate will capitulate....

Sad state of affairs.


: Me too (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:30:53 AM EST

: Which shows what (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by dutchfox on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:17:21 AM EST

the Dems think of the citizens of this Republic.

Keep up the call (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:47:48 AM EST

You should do a separate post at Mydd as well. Perhaps the blogging community will begin to listen now.

50 billion dollars is a wee bit more than 10 gold dollars but the promise is just as illusory

All that I am asking for is ten gold dollars
And I could pay you back with one good hand
You can look around about the wide world over
And you'll never find another honest man...
Everybody's breakin' and drinkin' that wine
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to daddy on the inside straight,
Well I got no chance of losin' this time.

This would be a good thing... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Edger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:31:58 AM EST

Perhaps the blogging community will begin to listen now.

Starting with Daily Kos..., who needs a good smack upside the head.


Agreed (none / 0) (#16)
by dutchfox on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:18:22 AM EST

But I hardly ever read DKos.


I stick to this blog (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by dutchfox on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:18:52 AM EST

and OOIC's.


: This is a very decent blog (none / 0) (#51)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 07:35:22 AM EST

I've noticed that it has a pretty reputable following as well when other bloggers list the blogs they read.

I just embedded a link w/i a comment to (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:47:14 AM EST

Kagro X's post.


: Dear mcjoan, (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:20:41 PM EST

I know you are busy w/Idaho political scene at present, but, here is my request. Would you consider linking to BTD's posts here on issues you and he agree on, most notably defunding the war in Iraq? Thanks for considering this request. In my opinion, you often reinforce each other and linking would make your point even stronger.

Did you see (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by taylormattd on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:34:55 PM EST

this press release from Edwards about the Post article?:

"Enough is enough. When Congress comes back next week, they should stand firm and make their position clear: No timeline, no funding. No excuses.
"In October, Congress needs to send the president a funding bill that withdraws all combat troops within the next year and lays the groundwork for a comprehensive political solution that will stabilize the country. If the president vetoes that bill, they need to send him another one--and do this as many times as it takes for the president to finally get the message that he cannot defy the will of the American people, of Congress, and even of many members of his own military who believe it's time to end this war and bring our troops home to the heroes' welcome they deserve."

When I first read this, I thought he was saying Congress should decline to fund. But I guess he isn't truly calling for that given that he advocates a "bill that withdraws all combat troops within the next year".

: With an ear to the wind I await (none / 0) (#34)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:06:48 PM EST

impatiently to hear the voice of Hillary, Obama, and Biden........not necessarily in that order. Last one is likely a rotten egg.

Would Feingold-Dodd be offered as an amendment (none / 0) (#12)
by Geekesque on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:33:27 AM EST

to the funding request or as a stand-alone bill?

I can't say that having Harry "Weak Tea" Reid leading the charge on this gives me much optimism.

Bush likely is looking for money ... (none / 0) (#13)
by chemoelectric on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:07:50 AM EST

... to fund his attack on Iran.

Date certain plan (none / 0) (#14)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:16:01 AM EST

spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain.

The Democrats have already lost the opportunity and initiative on this.

If you get a chance, look at the photo (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:39:32 AM EST

on front page of today's NYT, above the fold. About 15 U.S. military men are crossing a canal in Iraq holding their guns above their heads, which are just above the water line. Standing, as opposed to sitting, ducks. Meanwhile, Al Sadr is standing down his militias for regrouping.

You can find.... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by desertswine on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:45:29 AM EST

that picture here.

I only see two guys tho.


Your vision is obviously lots better (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:49:19 AM EST

than mine. Thanks.


: Still... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by desertswine on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:03:45 PM EST

they're in very deep water.

To all: on the news last night Iran's PM said (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:05:48 PM EST

he was ready to step into the "power vacuum" that would exist when the US left Iraq.

It occurred to me that he'd probably just be walking into a meat grinder.

Or do you think he'd have some chance at a relatively peaceful power grab?

Iran is already filling the vacuum in the need for (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:11:32 PM EST

actual power, per NYT, and the Iranians arrested at a check point in Baghdad recently were in Iraq to negotiate electricity contracts with Iraq's government.


: Wow (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by squeaky on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:20:56 PM EST

That says it all.

: Update (none / 0) (#49)
by squeaky on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:03:36 PM EST

U.S., acknowledging mistake, releases 8 Iranians, including two with diplomatic passports, seized at a Baghdad hotel yesterday to Iraqi authorities.
war & piece

Iraq/Iran (none / 0) (#24)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:10:48 PM EST

Well Iraq is already closely tied to Iran. With US out of the way they would be poweful allies in the region. I doubt there would be a coup or invasion, when the natural course is for the two countries to be closely allied.


You think an alliance would be nation to nation, (none / 0) (#28)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:24:49 PM EST

and not sect to sect?


You wish the (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Edger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:27:19 PM EST

alliance would be nation to nation, and not sect to sect. But that is not the reality.


The reality is tribe to tribe (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:33:48 PM EST

and some tribes in Iraq even have both Sunni and Shia in them.


Huh? I wish? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:39:32 PM EST

I really don't know what your point is there.

But, to be clear, the purpose of my question to MOTR was to point out exactly what you say regarding likely alliances. Nation to nation alliance is not the reality.


: Ok, sorry - I misread you. (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:40:23 PM EST

What do you think? (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:20:22 PM EST

"There are Shias in all these countries (of the region), significant percentages, and Shias are mostly always loyal to Iran and not the countries where they live," he said. Almost one-third of Kuwait's native population of one million are Shias. There are also significant Shiite populations in Bahrain, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. MP Saleh Ashour charged that Mubarak's statements "represent a Western intelligence policy to destabilise the region."
"Shias have succeeded in expelling Israeli forces from southern Lebanon... while the Israeli flag is flying in Egypt, the heart of the Arab nation." Ashour said a number of MPs will file an urgent request for a parliamentary debate on Mubarak's remarks in a session on April 17. MP Salah Khorsheed called on the Kuwaiti government to condemn the statements. The leader of the Congregation of Muslim Shias Scholars in Kuwait, Sayed Mohammad Baqer al-Mahri, said Shias living in the Gulf were loyal to their countries. "Our loyalty is always to our nations. We are prepared to take up arms and fight any aggressors who may attack our nations," Mahri told news agencies.
In an interview broadcast Saturday evening by Al-Arabia television, Mubarak said, "Definitely Iran has influence on Shias. Shias are 65 percent of the Iraqis ... Most of the Shias are loyal to Iran, and not to the countries they are living in."

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
Arab Times, 13th May 2007


How many congressional supporters for defunding? (none / 0) (#35)
by robrecht on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:37:12 PM EST

How many Democrats in the House and Senate will support defunding?

Whatever the current number, I expect it to go down after the Bush-Petraeus PR campaign in September. Apparently, Petraeus will endorse a military presence of some size for the next decade based on presentations he is currently giving to congressional visitors.

But I also expect the number of defunding supporters to rise in the longer term.

One never knows about these things (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:49:45 PM EST

if a Chinook goes down the day before or after the Petraeus report and we lose 30+ soldiers the fight is on my friend. We have four Senators running for Prez as well and one is heating things up on this issue.......Dodd. I may be weary but this fight isn't done yet and I feed my soul every morning now on the platitude that it is always darkest before the dawn. The meek shall inherit the earth but the tenacious will get'er done or die getting er done.


A very visible crowd of protestors (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:56:48 PM EST

last night in San Diego in front of Horton Plaza during commute time. Maybe half were holding signs urging "IMPEACH" and the other half were holding signs urging withdrawal from Iraq now. Everyone was shouting to bring the troops home now. Doubt this will change the minds of Brian Bilbray or Duncan Hunter though.


Good to know they were there (none / 0) (#54)
by Dadler on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:49:01 AM EST

I was supposed to go, but burned up my clutch yesterday afternoon. How many people did it look like to you? A least a hundred?


: My estimate: around a hundred. Mostly on (none / 0) (#55)
by oculus on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 05:00:04 PM EST

the south side of Broadway but some on the north curb. Many signs. Fellow with megaphone had everyone, including passersby, responding to his: you say bring 'em on, with "we say bring 'em home." A pedestrian on the NE corner veered out into the street and loudly yelled: stop the killing.

There would still be a military presence (none / 0) (#47)
by roy on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:07:46 PM EST

Reid-Feingold doesn't aim to remove all the troops from Iraq any time soon, only to reduce the size of the presence and change its mission. It may be that the remaining mission is kinda-sorta consistent with Petraeus's endorsement, in which case he won't undercut support for defunding as much as you might think.


: That's a good point (none / 0) (#48)
by robrecht on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:45:40 PM EST

I guess it depends on what people mean by defunding. I think some expect it to end our involvement in Iraq completely.

building consensus skills (none / 0) (#39)
by Stewieeeee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:08:54 PM EST

Let me explain again - I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain.

Yes. I Support your Proposal.

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 i t will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that politcal battle too.

Understand this, if you want to end the Iraq Debacle, this is the only way until Bush is not President.

If you are not for this for ending the war, tell me what you do support. I think this is the only way.

And if you shy away from the only way to end the Debacle, then you really are not for ending the war are you?

No. I don't support your Proposal.

Re: building consensus skills (none / 0) (#40)
by Edger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:18:55 PM EST

And if you shy away from the only way to end the Debacle, then you really are not for ending the war are you?
No. I don't support your Proposal.

Hunh?


that is just my gut reaction (none / 0) (#41)
by Stewieeeee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:25:37 PM EST

to every one of those statements.

i still labor under ignorant and faulty assumption that webb wants to end the war.

yes. i really and truly honestly believe that. no foolin'.

You don't support "the ::only:: way"? (none / 0) (#42)
by Edger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:28:17 PM EST

Somehow I don't think that's really what you mean, is it?


i support (none / 0) (#43)
by Stewieeeee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:33:50 PM EST

the right way.

and a whole bunch of those statements convinced what the right way was.

one did not.


You're not making any sense here, Stewie (none / 0) (#44)
by Edger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:57:01 PM EST

strawman (none / 0) (#45)
by Stewieeeee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:37:17 PM EST

i didn't claim to make any sense.


: You do have a point, of sorts :-/ (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Edger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:00:24 PM EST

It's your inner rebel (none / 0) (#52)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 07:37:06 AM EST

Whenever I tell my kids they must do something they show me how they must not.


: thanks!!! (none / 0) (#56)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 10:23:21 AM EST

it's a perfectly innate and human response to that kind of reasoning.
we like to think we're doing things cause we chose to do them, not because we were forced to do them at rhetorical gunpoint.

Consensus, making sense and parables (none / 0) (#53)
by Peaches on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:13:20 AM EST

The Land of the Fools

An old Sufi tale tells of a man who strayed from his own country into the world known as the Land of the Fools. He soon saw people fleeing in terror from a wheat field. "There's a monster in that field!" they shouted to him. He looked, and saw that the "monster" was a watermelon. He offered to kill the "monster" for them. He cut it from its stalk, carved a slice, and began to eat it. The effect: the denizens of the Land of the Fools were now more terrified of him than they were of the watermelon! "He'll kill us next!" they shouted. And so they drove him away with their pitchforks.
The next day, a woman strayed into the Land of the Fools, and the monster story was related to her. But, instead of offering to help them with the "monster", she agreed with the Fools that, yes, it must be dangerous. And so she led them away from it on tiptoe - and by so doing gained their confidence. She then spent time - a long time - in their houses, until she could teach them, little by little, the basic facts that would enable them not only to lose their fear of melons, but even to cultivate them for themselves.