Jonathan Weisman and Thomas E. Ricks report on the new Democratic war funding strategy in the House.
House Democratic leaders are coming together around legislation that would fund the war through September but would withhold more than half of those funds until July, when Bush would have to report on the Iraqi government’s progress toward benchmarks such as quelling sectarian violence, disarming militias and sharing oil revenue equitably. Congress would then have to vote in late July to release the remaining funds…
The new House proposal would immediately provide about $43 billion of the $95.5 billion the administration says it needs to keep the war going through Sept. 30. That infusion would come with language establishing benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government, and it is likely to include tougher standards for resting, training and equipping troops. Binding timelines for troop withdrawals would be dropped to try to win Republican support and avoid a second veto.
The remaining $52.5 billion in the bill would be contingent on a second vote in late July, after the administration’s progress report.
I like this strategy very much. It is more imaginative than anything I have come up with and anything I have noticed bandied about the internets. It should easily pass the House. In the Senate?
The bill, which could come to a House vote as early as Friday, faces significant obstacles in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) wants to allow the House debate to unfold, in part to see whether the plan will appeal to Republicans.
I don’t think we need to worry too much about the Senate. It should pass. We may have some pesky amendments to overcome, but it should pass.
This is what I wanted. Make the President keep coming back for more money and in a weaker position each time. Combined with standards on rest, equipment, and training for the troops, the bill will essentially end the war by the so-called ‘slow bleed’ approach. And, yet, it is flexible enough to allow the military to plan ahead and for Congress to react to unforeseen circumstances.
No wonder,
…White House spokesman Tony Snow pronounced the bill “not helpful.”
Kudos to the Democratic leadership. This is good thinking.
I like this strategy very much. It is more imaginative than anything I have come up with and anything I have noticed bandied about the internets.
Yes, I had been wondering what the Dems would come up with. This strategy is pretty innovative.
Even Alexander Cockburn has observed recently that the Dems have realized that they have to respond to the popular sentiment to end the war. The way he described the Dems’ situation is that they are in a predicament of realizing that they need to respond to the peoples’ wishes, while having to deal with the chorus of the corporate media, which is still energetically agitating for an endless occupation.
The main thing that has kept me thinking that the Dems have been acting more or less responsibly on Iraq of late is comparing the Iraq war to Vietnam. After Congress started making gestures that the war in Vietnam should end, it still took years for that to actually happen. My impression is that this time around, in the case of Iraq, Congress is actually moving more forcefully. And my sense is that the reason for that is that they understand that we have been here before. Whatever their failings might be, Democrats are able to learn from history.
Hey BOO! – good piece. However- I really want to see some postings re the Senate vote on drug importation. Just check out the dems that voted to deny ALL the folks their ability to get lower priced drugs from out of the country. Now, after seeing just how ballsless these dems are, do you think for one second that they are capable of honestly fighting the goopers regarding Iraq or for that matter, anything of major import?
These bastards are all full of shit. Screw them or lets vote them out in 08- every goddamned one of them.
billjpa
…if/when the Iraqi government doesn’t meet their benchmarks? Are we then playing chicken with the money? Or do we repeat this process all over again?
I’m very uncomfortable with dropping the timelines.
Many benchmarks have come and gone already – ratifying a constitution, capturing Saddam, killing that Al-Qaeda fellow…
The Dems know that the Iraqi govt either can’t achieve the “Benchmarks” or that acheiving them won’t have any effect on the violence – thus providing a wonderful way for the US to get out of Iraq whilst shifting the blame onto the Iraqis themselves. I guess that’s a better option than staying there and just getting creamed.
As if a regime that started the second most expensive war in American history by choice, without provocation, is a credible spokesperson for what may or may not qualify as, “helpful.”
Anything BushCo considers “not helpful” must be a step in the proper direction!