While it is nice to see the Democratic leaders in Congress are realizing that We the People are still pissed off about what is going on in our names in Iraq and are “accepting responsibility” for not doing enough, the tough-talk-followed-by-too-little-action-and-too-much-hand-wringing is something that we have already heard too many times before.
It is nice that you acknowledge, Senator Reid, that you “may have set the bar too high” (a sentiment that was shared by Armando/Big Tent Democrat, thereisnospoon and myself just the other night), that doesn’t even come close to being enough. The public wants out of Iraq. And yes, we know that is more involved than just getting our troops out immediately without though. But make no mistake – you were put in charge of Congress due in large part to the thought that you could take action to bring this illegal and bloody mess of an occupation to a close.
While there are a number of options that could accomplish this – there appears to only be one or two things available that are even feasible. Even republicans polled recently are in favor of withdrawal within the next six months. However, as the bar keeps getting moved with respect to the number of additional troops being sent and how long we are asked to wait for progress that will never come, NOW is the time to push back. And push back hard.
As indicated in the NY Times article linked above:
The proposals will not be new. Rather, Democrats intend to reprise at least four ideas when the Senate considers the Defense Department policy bill: a measure to reverse the authorization for the Iraq war, set a deadline for troop withdrawal, block money for major combat operations after March 31, 2008, and increase readiness requirements for troops to be sent back to Iraq. “On Iraq,” Mr. Reid said, “we’re going to hold the president’s feet to the fire.”
Congress can cut off funding. It can put in the “readiness measures”. It can reverse the authorization and it can set a deadline for withdrawal. However, all of these have been threatened in the past – only to have been withdrawn themselves. Consider the following:
- Readiness measures are only acceptable if no troops are actually sent until these measures are truly met – NOT if Bush “says” they are met;
- The authorization can be reversed ONLY if Congress is willing to take action when Bush continues the occupation after the authorization is reversed;
- Money can be blocked for major combat operations after March 2008 ONLY IF Congress not only follows through on this, but they also define what “major combat operations” is. And since Bush himself declared “major combat operations over” way back in his “Mission Accomplished moment”, this should be adhered to;
- A deadline can only be set if there are ramifications for such deadline to be met.
Now, all of these come with other hurdles as well. There will be an unwilling president, an unwilling opposition (yet, minority) party – and it is the minority party for a reason, and many calls that the Democrats are “defeatists”, “terrorist lovers”, “troop stranders” or whatever else. This is all bullshit and must be dealt with in a “pre-emptive strike”.
No more caving in. No more Senators Levin or Obama or Biden saying that they “will not leave the troops stranded”. That is a lie. That was always a lie. Prior Congresses have imposed constraints on President Clinton. Candidate Bush in 2000 indicated that there must be clear goals and a clear exit strategy before he were to send troops into harm’s way. And most importantly, the troops are not going to be stranded without bullets.
America has your back. We see the writing on the wall and have for a good long time now. America wants a troop withdrawal deadline. This does not mean that “the terrorists” can set their calendars. Besides, where is the outrage that this administration has been funding Sunni insurgents who could easily have recently been killing our troops in exchange for a promise to not do it anymore? Why not point out how this administration is taking actions such as this?
America wants this showdown. We wanted it last month before the Democrats suddenly and inexplicably caved in. Set a date certain. Don’t allow troops who are injured, unrested, untrained or unready to be deployed. We have heard the talk from you before. And we stood behind you then, even if we were very disappointed. There is another “showdown” with funding in the upcoming budget bill. There can be other “showdowns” before then.
Make no mistake, someone must be held accountable. It most certainly should be the republicans. But if this occupation drags on without you doing ALL THAT YOU CAN – which includes standing up to a weak ineffective loser of a president with record disapproval ratings – with the vast majority of the country behind you – then sadly, it is the Democratic Party that will ultimately be held accountable for not doing its’ job.
Don’t let us down. Don’t let America down. We have heard the talk before. Talk is cheap. People are dying needlessly. Find the damn votes. Get this done.
No more cheap tough talk, and no more excuses.
also in orange
Will they get tough?
I don’t think so. Maybe they don’t even want to. Seems to me the dems “doth protest too much”. They easily adopted the framing spin that not funding the war meant not being for the troops…way too easily. I think the 2006 election gives lie to that hiddy hole.
How hard is this:
They could have told Ackerman and his AIPAC crew to go piss up a rope on removing the clause that would have required Bush to go to congress before attacking Iran.
They could have sent Bush the same bill over and over and over..let him veto it every time..then it would have been “his fault” and the nasty repubs.
How hard would it have been to say we are funding the troops with everything “they need including the date for withdrawal” demanded by the American people and Bush is defying your will.
Why pray tell would I as a dem congressman not want to do that for election potential if nothing else. Why would I give a shit about the 30% “wur” supporters instead of the 70% against? It’s the disatisfied repub crossover voters and independents that gave them congress in 2006.
This story that they “don’t have the votes” before they even put it to a vote is getting old.
What the hell is the point of saying you are “moving forward in your effort” if you are moving in the wrong direction?
This story that they are working “within” the legistative system looks more like the same old “collusion” of this and that special and political considerations.
Yuck, I give up. This is no way to run a country
all this amounts to is more talk-talk from Hairy <strike>Pussy</strike> Reid.
Fact is, the Democrats tipped their hand, and now the GOP and El Busho know that all they have to do is threaten a veto and criticism and the Democrats will fold.
I don’t trust the Democrats to do anything, and I am ashamed that I even bothered in 2006.
This is truly the Democrats “shit or get off the pot” moment.
They have tried to weasel their way around directly confronting this administration on the Iraq war and it has become painfully obvious that this tactic is a non-starter.
But they are going to have to be prepared on all fronts to fight the onslaught of the right-wing sound machine. And they had better damn well find a way to speak to it other than going into long-winded dissertations trying to explain the intricacies and calculus behind their stance.
Because it’s pretty damn simple. An overwhelming majority of Americans want the Congress to do something about extracting us from George Bush’s nightmare in Iraq. The American people are finished with the enabling of this President’s imperial fantasies and are looking for action. The American people don’t expect the Democrats to have all the answers to what will happen the next month or next year after we start withdrawal. They don’t expect them to promise that it will be all sweetness and light and that things won’t get worse before they get better. Everybody knows that there is a likelihood that things will continue to be uglier and more brutal in Iraq.
The only way that staying in Iraq makes any sense at all is that if we are planning on having an eternally occupying force in Iraq. We essentially annex Iraq and make it a permanent U.S. holding, occupied and secured by American force while maintaining a puppet government to give a facade of sovereignty to the Iraqi people. That seems to be the unspoken direction this administration has been wanting to take. So if the Democrats don’t want to do anything other than blow smoke then they become nothing more than a consenting party to the worst foreign policy decision in the history of our country.
At SmirkingChimp Bob Beiger has a piece about how Russ Feingold is again pushing his bill to end the war. Since he will never get the votes to pass that bill, that is pointless. It is beginning to look as if even Feingold is a tool. If he really wanted to end the war, he could have done so last May, by filibustering the war supplemental bill.
Booman has supported the strategy the Dem leadership says it is following, trying to pry off Congressional Rethug support for Bush on the war, to begin disengagement by bipartisan means. But I see absolutely no indication that the Rethugs are going to be any more willing to end the war in September than they were in May, Booman’s hopes about that notwithstanding. The Rethugs don’t care about what the American people want. They only care about their base: you can see that from their presidential debates. Therefore this strategy is doomed to fail.
The American public has turned decisively against the war, and has wanted an end to it for a couple of years now. The Dem Party leadership needs to decide in the next couple of months whether it wants to side with the American people or Bush and the Republican Party on this issue. I don’t have much doubt which they will choose.
The real question at this point is whether the widespread discontent and disgust with the Democrats in Congress will develop into something consequential, into a popular movement that Dems will no longer be able to pacify with empty words and gestures.
You can’t filibuster unless you have 41 Senators supporting you. Did Feingold have 41 Senators supporting him? No.
Booman, you’re right on that point. Unless they can somehow manage to pull Republicans across the aisle to side with them for withdrawal, then a termination of funding is the only option I think they have. To do anything other than that, they just don’t have the votes. As long as the Republicans are in lock-step with the President, the number of tangible things they can do are limited, but there are options. But I’m not sure the American people will accept a continuation of the status quo. They want “something” done. And if the only “something” that is doable is defunding, then they have to give it consideration. They need to start thinking how to make it work and move the framing of the issue away from what has been pounded out by the noise machine in the mainstream media.
Sometimes it just seems like their unsure about how to “play the game” in today’s environment.
Maybe not, but I didn’t see him even trying the waters. The worst that could happen if he started talking about filibustering war supplemental bills is that that talk would be as unproductive as his introducing bills to end the war that would need considerably more votes to pass.
Does Feingold have the 51 votes to pass the Feingold-Reid measure? I don’t think so. Last month, it only got 29. So why does he continue with that instead of agitating for a filibuster, which requires ten fewer votes to succeed?
BTW, do you still think that the Dem strategy to end the war by convincing Rethugs that they should stop backing the war stands much chance of success? Your defense of the Dem strategy is based on the assumption that Rethug support for the occupation will gradually erode from June through September. I see absolutely no sign of that happening.