Do folks attacking Democrats for the Iraq bill have any chance of getting their proposals passed?

[bigtree]

If not, what are they expecting to happen as a result of their assault on our Democratic leadership and others? Will that opposition to our party members and leadership actually achieve anything which will move us closer to getting Bush to withdrawal? I'm speaking to the situation as it stands now, with the House bill passed and the Senate action pending which will be much like the House effort.

Are folks opposed waiting for the bill to fail before making their move? Do opponents of this legislation have a move? Or are they just sitting in the catbird's seat, satisfied with criticizing every effort but their ineffective own?

I'm not looking for some perfect plan to get out of Iraq, I'm looking for legislation which can advance to Bush's desk. At that point, Bush will be challenged to explain to the American people why and how he intends to continue his occupation without money or support. The withdrawal funding legislation which has passed the House and the Senate effort has already been rejected by the WH. There will be a sense of finality when the bill reaches his desk. No longer will there be any question of whether Congress will give him what he wants to continue his escalated occupation. He will be rejected.

What I'm wondering, as well, is when will those opposed to this bill advancing begin to hold Bush accountable for his defiance of Congress' legislative will in rejecting the withdrawal bill? Is it really of any value at all to keep insisting that the legislation gives Bush what he wants, even as he rails against it and moves forward in defiance of it as he vetoes the bill as promised?

So, say your proposal has been effectively rejected. It can't find support. Doesn't that lack of support make the proposal essentially worthless for the purposes of this effort to move legislation through this Congress to Bush's desk?

I really don't understand the value of continuing to attack our party members who supported the House bill if there is no reliable prospect of advancing the other stricter initiatives. I could see having a prolonged debate over the bill if there was some chance that Congress was likely to revisit the bill and these other proposals had managed to gain enough support to overcome the last effort and move up the legislative ladder. But that's a far-fetched prospect, isn't it? This bill will be taken up in committee by the Senate, changed to reflect the priorities expressed by Bob Byrd, possibly amended on the floor, and hopefully passed on to reconciliation with the House.

Where is the opportunity for the proposals endorsed by those opposed to the substance of this effort to gain traction and support to advance? If the opponents of this bill passed out of the House can't find a way to put their ideas into action, I don't know why anyone should get behind their effort.


'Are you lifting the oxcart out of the ditch? Are you tearing up the pea patch? Are you hollering down the rain barrel? Are you scraping around the bottom of the pickle barrel? Are you sitting in the catbird seat?' --Thurber

[Donnachaidh]

1. k&r

hit the nail on the head.

[bryant69]

2. I think the response is that this bill won't pass either

President Bush will veto; not enough votes to override (unless he insults congress at the same time). So if we are talking about a symbolic gesture that won't pass; why not talk about a huge symbolic gesture that won't pass.

Of course there also seem to be others who really believe that Democrats in Congress could get our troops out of Iraq if they had the political will to do so.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bigtree]

3. it will advance to his desk

at that point he can either accept a withdrawal requirement that he's been calling retreat, or he can reject what will be seen by the majority of us as a responsible bill.

He'll then be challenged to explain how and why he will continue. At that point, he will also be without the funds he says he needs to continue, exactly the position the opponents to this bill say they want him to be in.

Also, I don't think this will be symbolic just because Bush rejects it. The rejection is a defiance of a sizable majority of Congress' will. That's our democracy. It's a mistake to conclude that his rejection won't have political consequences. After all, moving Bush politically is the function of our legislators as well as establishing and defending fine points of law.

And again where will the grander proposals find support to advance?

[bryant69]

4. I agree with your assessment

Bryant

[cali]

5. They're enablers!!!

They're traitors to the American people who put them in office!!! They should stand tall on principle!!! They could have not sent him a spending bill at all and would have been forced to end the war!!! Now its the democrats war!!! blah, blah, blah.

[bigtree]

8. patience, Cali

We're all learning more and more about how to affect the process. Answering the query may bring enlightenment . . . for all of us.

[cali]

19. Sorry, I feel properly chastened.

It's just that reasonable explanations of the political exigencies and understanding of the limitations of dem power, seem to be met with anger and a stubborn refusal to try and understand why this legislation might actually advance us toward the goal we all share- getting our of Iraq. Nevertheless, I could benefit by exercising more patience- and restraint.

[mmonk]

6. I guess because we have the numbers in the House

to make more of a real difference by starting with a hard line if all democratic members would be supportive of such an approach.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. He's going to veto the bill. If they wanted to "send a message" why not a strong message?

Instead of one that offers Bush all the funding he wanted?

If Pelosi couldn't get the votes to pass this bill without pandering to the Blue Dogs and watering it down to meaninglessness, what makes you think that the Blue Dogs are going to be any more willing to pass a stronger bill?

It was a toothless and meaningless bill meant to give the illusion of doing something when doing nothing.

[bigtree]

10. I don't agree that it offered all the funding he wanted

neither do Bush and Cheney.

The point is that I don't think they will pass a stronger bill. Are we willing to wait their term out, or is there some value in a compromise which advances to Bush's desk, even if ultimately rejected? I think a compromise which directly challenges Bush has value. I don't see how anyone could have heard their speeches after the passing of the bill and conclude that Bush and Cheney want this bill or that they feel it enables them. That's why it's mystifying that there is the insistence that it does.

It's not illusion that it advanced. It's not illusion that it is going to the Senate. If they pass it out and move it to conference and to Bush's desk it will not be illusion as he rejects it. Everyone except our party's most strident critics (on our side?) will see this as a direct repudiation of Bush. The other proposals aren't even on the radar because they did not achieve the support needed to advance them to a point of relevancy.

[EFerrari]

14. Or because Nancy Pelosi wouldn't allow them to come up

even in committee, such as the Lee amendment which proposed a fully funded withdrawal by the end of the year.

I am mystified that people like Barbara Lee are being discounted when she has been consistently right about this debacle. And, voila, she wasn't turned out of office. :shrug:

[bigtree]

18. There weren't enough legislators in committee or on the floor to support the measure

and on the floor, the worry was that they would open the door to republican amendments.

You've eclipsed Lee in your opposition . . .

Rep. Lee:

"I find myself in the excruciating position of being asked to choose between voting for funding for the war or establishing timelines to end it," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California). "I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11003

[EFerrari]

23. Sure. Because no one is in the position to "persuade" me.

Her townhall is being replayed now on CSPAN. Daniel Ellsberg, Military Families Speak Out, Sean Penn, Veterans Against the War.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. And, then? It "repudiates" Bush (sort of), so?

Are they then not going to reach some sort of "compromise" more acceptable to Bush? Are they going to not pass a funding bill?

If Nancy had to pander to the Blue Dogs and water down the current bill, what will she have to do to get a "compromise" with Bush and the Blue Dogs that a) will pass b)not be vetoed?

Or, do you believe that they will defy both the Blue Dogs and Bush and refuse to pass any sort of bill? After this performance of "how to cave" I don't.

[bigtree]

37. do you think there will be any value in a compromise which will begin to actually bring troops home?

I can't imagine telling soldiers that they should wait for a perfect legislative effort to begin to come home.

[bvar22]

29. It is also NOT an illusion....

It is NOT an illusion that:

*this bill authorizes the unopposed extension of the Iraq War for another 18 months minimum with the full endorsement of the Democratic Party. (BTW: For those who think this bill is a good thing, do you know when bush*s term expires?)

*this bill funnels over $100Billion of taxpayer money (borrowed and billed to your children) for the
War Machine and the rich contractors fully endorsed by the Democratic Party

*that this bill authorizes the PERMANENT occupation of Iraq fully endorsed by the Democratic Party


Anyone who believes that this bill will put restrictions on Bush* clearly did NOT learn anything from the debacle of the IWR which also put restrictions on bush* (How did THAT work for you?)

How can anyone believe that this bill moves us closer to Peace?

I oppose physical Torture, and I also oppose TORTURED logic.



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[bigtree]

32. By your logic, NOTHING can restrain Bush

Enacted into Law, this and any bill would still require Congress to step up and hold Bush accountable fro pushing past the points of accountability.

That 'authorization to continue' is actually a provision that allows for a "limited" engagement to fight "al-Qaeda" in Iraq. There's only 1-2% of that influence in Iraq by the Pentagon's own admission. It should be easy enough for Congress to act to limit or stop Bush from continuing with the occupation using that weak justification.

The notion, by some of the bill's continuing critics, that the Democrats who lobbied and voted for the legislation were any less courageous than the ones who stood against the bill should have been laid to rest as our Democratic leadership stood toe to toe against the insults of the republican opposition. Bush and his enablers certainly don't see this bill as a license to continue their occupation.

here's the provision that some claim is a loophole allowing Bush to continue his occupation indefinitely:

(f) After the conclusion of the 180-day period for redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:

(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.
(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.
(4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Nothing in the provision gives Bush the sole power to determine any of these. Congress will still be in place to challenge any assertion that troops are needed to address these concerns. This provision spells that out for the skeptical:

It is the sense of Congress that, because the commanders of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq have the training, experience, and first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground--

(1) the commanders should be allowed to conduct the war and manage the movements of the troops; and
(2) Congress should remain focused on executing its oversight role.

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1591


The only tortured logic is how the opponents of this legislation think that their NOTHING accomplished by way of their own proposals trumps this withdrawal bill and thinking that that NOTHING accomplished is somehow going to direct or influence Bush to do anything.

That's what you have accomplished with your proposals so far, isn't it? Nothing?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. Look, they couldn't even pass the half-assed proposal

with a veto-proof margin, so what they need to do is to make a statement that they can use to hit the Republicans with in 2008.

By taking an unequivocal stand of "End the war NOW," they could lay down a position of strenghth and moral rightness, and then when the Republicans and the Bushboy reject it, they can go to the American people and say, "See? We tried to stop the war, we really tried, and Bush wouldn't let us."

If you're going to be defeated, go down from the strongest position possible.

What the Dems did in that bill was to compromise before they had to. In effect, theyi told Bush, "You can continue sending American youth to the slaughter until you're almost out of office anyway. All you have to do is assure us that things are going fine."

Suppose Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had called together their respective flocks of legislators and told them that anyone who didn't support the new bill would get no campaign support the next time around, that they would rather have the party go down to defeat than to spend another day standing by while the Busheviks committed war crimes.

Supposed they had passed a bill that said, "Troops out of Iraq as soon as logistically possible. No new troops to anywhere in the Middle East without a formal declaration of war, which we're not going to give you without a thorough investigation, so don't try any of those Gulf of Tonkin incidnets, bud."

Of course Bush would veto it. No question. Of course the Big Bad Tawking Heads Guys would want and wave and tell their wisteners to vote for the Wepubwicans. So what?

But now all the Dem Congresscritters could go back to their home districts and loudly proclaim that they had seriously tried to stop the war.

The voters would take notice: Democrats showing unity and courage? Whoa!

In the end, it would benefit the party, because one thing I've noticed over the years is that average people appreciate gutsy politicians. It almost doesn't matter what the issue is or what side the politician is on. They want fighters, not wimps.

I don't see why they are being so tactically stupid as to offer a lame preemptive compromise as their FIRST OFFER.

[stirlingsliver]

11. Excellent Post!

Most excellent post.

Don't compromise until you have to -- excellent advice!

[bigtree]

15. there will be no other moment to advance the stricter proposals in this Congress

There was no chance of advancing the proposals when this bill was being considered. They didn't achieve enough support. That was the time for compromise, which some who had supported stricter language graciously did.

[bigtree]

12. The compromise was all that could get out of the House.

The progressives who wanted a stricter bill didn't get the support they needed. That's history. We could debate before the passage, but now it's moot. There is a withdrawal bill advancing to the Senate which Bush has labeled a retreat from Iraq.

None of the progressives' proposals even made it out of committee. You talk about a slim margin but you disregard the lengths they had to go to get ANY bill out of committee and on to the floor, and then, get enough votes to pass it. I think it is a sigh of the strength of our party that some of those who supported stricter proposals voted anyway for the bill. Rep. Lee, who had the proposal supported by Rep. Kucinich, remarked on the importance of the end date in the legislation as she voted against it; saying that it was significant enough to advance.

It's all well and good to talk about what's 'smart', but there come a point where you have to produce. I'm not part of the Congress. I want results. I want a bill which will advance to Bush's desk. Just because you don't think it's strong enough doesn't mean Bush isn't rebuffed by it. That's what we say we want.

And, how in the world do you get a "veto-proof" margin with the stricter proposals that didn't achieve enough support in our own party? I don't like it, but that's the state of play right now. The stricter proposals didn't get anywhere. They are effectively dead in this Congress. Either we are waiting for this Congress to expire before acting, or we are helping move this decidedly imperfect legislation to Bush's desk to directly confront him.

What good does it do to spend time claiming the bill is enabling of him when it will be soundly rejected by Bush in the most obnoxious terms? Are we deaf to his defiance just because the stricter proposals didn't get enacted?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. Why aren't you asking yourself what the hell is wrong with

a party that can't get unanimity on the overriding moral issue of the year?

I hope the enablers face some heavy primary challenges next time around.

[bigtree]

31. in fact, the party did 'unify' in the House

to pass this bill

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. Well, whoop-de-doo, they "unified" to pass a bill with no teeth

:yawn:

"And now for our next trick, we'll unify to tell Bush to stop mangling the English language."

[bigtree]

40. I really don't see what is so confronting about an argument

without any legislative vehicle at all to carry it to Bush's desk.

[helderheid]

13. BRAVO!

:applause:

[EFerrari]

16. Yeah, it's like walking into a car dealership and starting with

a full price offer. :think:

[Tom Joad]

22. And saying you insist on buying a car that is unfixable. "Gimme the Lemon"

[Kelly Rupert]

20. The bill passed 218-212.

I would say that the compromise was necessary.

[Tom Joad]

25. Got to consider that since most of the Dem leadership supported this war to begin with

and the idea of "regime change" in Iraq (formally endorsed by Bill Clinton, and his long sorry history with Iraq that included deadly sanctions and bombings).... why do you expect most of the Dems would support such a proposal.

Their two main concerns are:
All options are on the table for Iran, the next war (and they dutifully removed language that told bush he must come to congress before attacking Iran).

Impeachment is off the table.

As an antiwar activist....
I think its time to overturn the table! Is this the Party for all the people, or just the big donors?

[bvar22]

30. Bravo post #9, LydiaLeftcoast!

:patriot:

[Tom Joad]

21. I am looking for a plan that does NOT in any way justify the continuation of this war.

Let's be clear. The US military has no legal mission in Iraq. The US military has violated international law in an act of aggression against Iraq and the Iraqi people.
We must not affirm its presence there in any way.
We must not say this military can continue its illegal and morally bankrupt occupation policy until late Sept 2008, and then beyond (which would certainly be the case if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, presuming she keeps her promises)

[bigtree]

24. I want to know where you have support for that in Congress

enough to advance that plan to Bush's desk.

What is the value in a plan which doesn't have enough support to advance?

[Tom Joad]

26. What is the value in supporting continuing criminal occupation?

But i do think that most Dems do support the occupation, so no, there is insufficient support in Congress for peace.

[bigtree]

33. Just saying it over and over doesn't make it true

Bush and those who are arguing to continue the occupation certainly don't see the bill as a license to continue.

Of course, NO one wants to end the occupation as much as YOU do. :eyes:

[Telly Savalas]

74. A majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the IWR

and I doubt too many of them have grown more enthusiastic about the war as it's gone on. The problem this majority of the caucus faces is that they are outnumbered by the sum of the GOP delegation and the DINOs. Question their tactics all you want, but it's dishonest to accuse them of being Bush's stooges.

[EFerrari]

27. I can't help thinking that that argument is exactly backwards.

Politicians are professionally risk adverse.

It's up to US to apply the pressure that will push them into action.

It's not up to US to take our cue from their political calculations.

And, bigtree, there is no snark in that statement at all.

[bigtree]

34. I just don't think Bush is going to be effectively pushed by the opponents of this bill's empty hand

or going to push anyone else

[Forkboy]

35. Bush wont be pushed by anybody

Which is why you see people protest the Dems,who can be pushed in the right direction because,I believe,that's the direction Democrats naturally want to go anyways.Dems are on the right side of every issue,but at times reluctantly it seems.The Republicans will just ignore us.At least the Dems are open to ideas,reluctantly or not.They're the only reasonable target for a protest.And I also give the targets enough credit to understand the basic principle of protests in the first place,another thing that separates us from the Right.

When you were young did your parents ever give you a metaphorical kick in the ass that you can look back on a think,"Hey,they were right.I needed that at that time."? If so do you think that it was done out of hatred or demands of purity from your parents?

This is where I see the Dems now.I think they're hearts,for the most part,are in the right place,but they need some prodding to do what's best.

But because I realize that it's a slow process I believe that's all the more reason to start prodding NOW. :shrug:

I also see these arguments as great for the Dems.Unlike the Right we're (usually) capable of introspection,and while it takes awhile to get somewhere it's the COMBINED voices of both the center and the "fringe left" (a term I have to admit I've come to like describing myself as) that get us there.

[bigtree]

36. but, where do we begin to directly confront Bush NOW?

Most of the protests against the present legislation and the present makeup of Congress presumes we can wait until 2008 or beyond with a change in our Democratic membership, perhaps, to effect any of their unsupported proposals. I don't think we can afford to wait until we get the perfect Congress or the perfect bill to pressure Bush.

If you listen to the republicans and the WH, they view the Democratic effort as an active opposition to their plans to continue. I don't see the wisdom in portraying the only effort to rebuke Bush on Iraq we were able to get out of Congress since the invasion 4 years ago as enabling of his occupation, especially since the republican opposition is so thoroughly positioned against the withdrawal legislative effort so far.

We should be spending our time actively protesting against their defiance of our efforts with this bill and their defiance of the next Senate action.

[Forkboy]

38. Bush is already being confronted on just about every angle now.

But it doesn't matter.Protesting them is more symbolic than effectual,and that's not a bad thing mind you,but I'd rather protest people who can and will listen,if a bit reluctantly.I don't think it makes the Dems look bad at all,and all Pelosi would have to say is something along the lines of,"I don't agree with them that we're not doing enough,but I certainly respect their right to protest" and the whole thing works in the the Left's favor all around.The protesters get to make their point,Pelosi comes out looking good for taking the high road,and the contrast between her saying that and Bush's contempt for the right of protest would be stark and make the Repubs look bad instead.

If you listen to the republicans and the WH, they view the Democratic effort as an active opposition to their plans to continue.

You're already letting the Republicans frame the debate,and your thinking,when you say,"If you listen to the Republicans and the WH".You can be an active opposition but there's degrees of activity.Some feel they aren't active enough.Some feel they're doing great.

Why would someone listen to what they have say and take it seriously in the first place?If someone on the Left says,"The Democrats aren't active enough" they get ridiculed by some.Why are the Republican's views taken more seriously than the views of people who have never,and would never,vote for a Republican in their lives? People who agree with you on a million more issues than any Republican ever would?

We should be spending our time actively protesting against their defiance of our efforts with this bill and their defiance of the next Senate action.

We should do both.We should push anyone and everyone that can,might,maybe,sort of,do ANYTHING that stops this.Right now that's the Democrats.

Hell,I see it as a sign that the Dem are finally in a positon of influence again.It's been awhile since we could even have a debate over their actions and their impact.I think that's where a lot of the frustration you see from us comes from.It's been so long since we've had the influence that many people want to see it used quickly,forcefully and effectively.A little Congressional Shock and Awe if you will. :)

[EFerrari]

46. No, not Bush. But the folks that want our vote.

I don't mean to be tiresome.

[bigtree]

48. I don't really mind the protests if they are focused on moving the process forward

focusing on rejected proposals to the exclusion of the one which has advanced and is being aggressively defied by the WH is a misdirection of energy. The debate over the alternatives has already occurred in the House, as far as this legislative effort is concerned. There will not likely be another more binding action in this Congress. I don't know who you're lobbying and why? Certainly in the House, that debate is over for this Congress on this legislative effort.

If you're projecting your argument toward some future debate then you should be held accountable for the inevitable delay in action. I'm not for delaying action until we can get some perfect Congress which will bend to your argument.

[EFerrari]

50. The debate is on going, and I will not hold my breathe for some perfect Congress

lol

[Telly Savalas]

75. I see what you're getting at.

It would be severely fucked up if war protestors marched DC chanting:

"What do we want?"
"Provisions that place some constraints on Bush's autonomy in conducting the occupation of Iraq and will potentially lead to a gradual withdrawal of American forces!"
"When do we want it?"
"Over an 18 month time line!"

I'd just like to see us attacking each other a little bit less. Pelosi not only has the GOP to deal with, but a contingent of hawks in her own party. Questioning her tactics is cool, but questioning her integrity isn't. If everybody voted like she did back in 2002, there wouldn't be a damn war in the first place.

[ecstatic]

41. To me its a moral issue: You do what's right even when you're outnumbered

You may not succeed, but at least you can walk away with your head held high knowing that YOU AT LEAST TRIED (and hell, the American people will know it too). How will this be spun in the history books?

[bigtree]

47. I don't think history would have liked a Congress which refused to confront Bush legislatively

because they couldn't agree on a perfect bill.

[MadHound]

42. You want a plan? I'll give you a plan, one that will bring the troops home,

And it doesn't even require passage through Congress.

Defund the war.

Simply bury each and every supplemental war funding bill deep in committee(as is the right of the majority party), and refuse any war funding to see the light of day.

Voila, war is defunded, and Bush is forced to bring the troops home.

Easy, simple, direct and effective. What's wrong with that?

[bigtree]

44. I want a plan which has gathered the necessary amount of support in Congress

to advance it.

That debate has already occurred in the House and the stricter proposals failed to get the necessary amount of support for them to advance in legislative form.

The approach of 'defunding' the occupation through sitting on their hands failed to get the necessary amount of support in the House to advance and will likely not get the support necessary in the Senate to act upon. Folks who still expect the process to move forward are left with whatever collection of supported initiatives are crafted into a bill. That effort will have to have the necessary support to get it out of committee and onto the Senate floor for a debate. Once on the floor, it will have to have the necessary amount of votes (60) to bring it to a vote. Then, the bill will have to get a majority to vote for it.

The effort to 'defund' the occupation by voting 'no' on the supplemental appears to have been rejected by enough legislators to make it a dead proposal as far as this Congress is concerned. It has no realistic prospect of being adopted in this Congress. The only collection of initiatives which will advance are the ones which can achieve the necessary amount of support for the package to advance out of the committee, onto the Senate floor, and gain enough votes for passage.

[MadHound]

76. Do you understand what burying a bill in committee entales?

You don't have to craft a majority in Congress, you don't have compromise and water down a particular piece of legislation, you don't have to get a vote on the floor. That is the whole beauty of being in the majority in Congress, you control the committees, you control the agenda, and if the Democratic party doens't wish to see a supplemental war funding bill come to a vote, they can simply let it rest in committee forever.

This is Civics 101 friend, perhaps you need to brush up on it. You seem convinced that this needs to go to a vote on the open floor with this, and you really don't need to.

[bigtree]

77. You are amazingly condescending

I don't need any civics lesson to know that there is absolutely NO support for that course in this Congress. That's makes it a non-starter, a dead proposal. It's NOT going to happen. I don't know why you and others are still acting like it has a chance of happening. That course was soundly rejected in the House and doesn't appear to have ANY support in the Senate.

We will now deal with what has advanced from the House and manage that bill through the Senate, hopefully to conference.

You do understand that that proposal to 'bury bills' isn't going to be an option with this Congress don't you? That gives the opponents of this effort an empty hand. Unsupported proposals amount to NO ACTION on them. They amount to NOTHING without the necessary measure of support to advance them.

[MadHound]

82. Unsupported, no, actually there are several congressmen who support this course

Along with 46% of the American public, a large minority bloc that, with a little PR work on the part of the Dems could actually be turned into a majority(after all, a majority of the American public does favor an immediate withdrawl)<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_022607.htm>

But the sad thing is that Pelosi and the other Dem leaders took the defunding option off the table before Congress was even seated, thus strengthening Bushboy's hand immensely. Knowing that the Dems aren't going to defund the war, Bush can play these little games that he's playing now, stalling for a bill that gives him even better concessions that what this POS currently gives him.

And as far as Congressional support goes, we don't need the support of Republicans, since we're in the majority. What the Dems need is simply the will and the spine to bury the bills in committee.

You keep saying that you want to end the war, here's a way to do so that will end it more conclusively, and quicker that what the Dems are currently proposing. Yet instead, you, much like our so called leaders are wanting to dick around with legislative games that are pointless, and won't end the war. DK and others have presented this course to end the war. The question now facing you, and our Democratic leaders, is do you really, truly want to end this war, or are you willing to play political games while thousands continue to die?

Me, I'm standing with DK and others who want to end the war NOW, by any means necessary. What about you?

[bigtree]

83. do you have to be told that they don't constitute a majority?

there aren't enough of them. there haven't BEEN enough of them to constitute any workable majority which would enable them to move their proposal forward. It's meaningless to keep presenting rejected proposals which still haven't achieved the necessary number of legislators who would exercise your option.

And why don't you (and DK) get off of your high horse and stop acting like you folks are the only ones who want peace. It's nauseating and insulting.

I don't see how you expect to 'end the war' by continuing to support proposals which aren't going anywhere legislatively in Congress. All of the protest and agitation is no substitute for legislative action.

[MadHound]

86. And you wonder why I keep asking if you've taken any Civics courses

It is because of comments like this.

Once again, from the top, please pay attention. In order to defund this war, all that the Democrats have to do is to bury the supplemental war bills in committee. Refuse to have them heard, refuse to have them hit the open floor. This does NOT take a majority vote of any sort, this doesn't take a majority of Democrats for that matter. All this takes is for a majority vote in a particular committee, plus assignment by Pelosi or Reid to the appropriate committee. So, depending on the committee assigned, you would need the backing of between 20 and 30 Democrats in the House, and 10-15 Democrats in the Senate. Either, or, you wouldn't need both, you could hold the bills up in Senate sub committees or House subcommittees.

Got it? I certainly hope so, for somehow you keep thinking that we would need a majority vote on the open floor, we wouldn't, OK. Just kill these supplemental war funding bills in committee.

Geez!

[bigtree]

87. Did your proposal have enough Representatives in committe?

No. They didn't constitute a majority. The majority of those Democrats who were on the budget committee did not support 'burying the bill'. There does not appear to be a majority of Senators who are willing to just "bury the bill" in the Senate either.

The Senate looks like they are going to follow Sen. Robert Byrd, who led the Democratic opposition to the IWR calling it a blank-check, in crafting a bill which would confront Bush at his desk instead of adopting an action which wouldn't direct him to do anything at all; and one which provides the money for our soldiers which we insist Bush and his republican enablers in Congress haven't provided for the troops already in harm's way and in support positions around the region.

[MadHound]

88. Ummm, "my" proposal hasn't even been to committee yet

Defunding a bill isn't a proposal, OK. The committee simply votes to table these supplemental war funding bills. It isn't, in and of itself, a proposal that gets voted on, OK. Got the picture?

However the Democratic leaders, Pelosi and Reid, vowed before the Congress was ever seated not to defund the war, ie they won't bury the supplemental war funding bills in committee OK. Got the picture?

Burying a bill in committee isn't a proposal, it is known as a parlimentary manuever, got the picture? Pelosi and Reid denied the Democratic party the right to exercise that parlimentary manuever from the get go on supplemental war funding bills. So gee, even THEY didn't have a majority, it only took two people to do this:shrug:

This is what DK, other people in Congress, and others like myself are doing, lobbying the Democratic leadership to allow Congressional committees to bury supplemental war funding bills. Got the picture? Do you understand? Good.

[bigtree]

89. This isn't true at all. Your position was out there for Representatives to choose from

when they crafted the House legislation. Did you miss the committee hearings?

There weren't a sufficient number, or any number at all, of Representatives in that budget committee who were willing to take the course you proscribe. The majority opted, instead, to craft a bill which would confront Bush at his desk.

In the Senate, it appears they are intent on crafting a bill instead of just "burying the bill" in committee.


Also, (*as an aside) just getting a bill out of committee and on to the floor doesn't assure passage. Just because a number in committee votes for something doesn't mean it will be acceptable to a majority when it reaches the floor. If you look at the activities of the majority of congresspersons, you will find that they are intent on crafting legislation, not just voting 'no', in committee or on the floor.

[Robbien]

43. Pelosi is the speaker. If she wants a vote she brings up a bill

If she doesn't want a bill to pass, then just doesn't bring up the bill for a vote.

A bill to fund the continued carnage in Iraq.
Hmmmm. What to do. What to do.

If she brings the bill up for a vote, the defense industry keeps humming.
If she leaves the bill to gather dust, no more money for warmongers.

As the good Democrat she is, she does the right thing.

The Defense Industry rejoices.

[bigtree]

45. Her role was to count the votes and work to craft a bill which would pass

out of committee and out of the House. She did just that.

She did the right thing. She helped pass a withdrawal bill which will join with the Senate action and, hopefully advance to confront Bush.

[Robbien]

49. Why?

Why work to craft a bill to fund Iraq carnage.

All she had to do is say "this bill I choose not to present for a vote".
It dies.

Period. No funding.

No giving goodies to the Blue Dogs. No twisting arms of Peace Democrats.

If she wanted to confront Bush, she didn't have to do it on the backs of dead Iraqis. She should have chosen another bill.

Let the funding bill die of neglect gathering dust in the not done pile.

[bigtree]

51. Of course, you know I don't agree that the bill 'funds' the occupation

It effectively 'defunds' the occupation by denying Bush what he says he needs to continue and focusing on withdrawal by the end date or before.

[Robbien]

52. It defunds nothing. Read the withdrawal clause

It kinda sorta does tell Bush to withdraw. But then again not. It says, hey Bush see this date 9/08? If you could, please arrange to have all but a goodly sum of the military leave Iraq. But if you don't think that is a good idea, then nevermind.

actual wording in this thread here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x501943

And Bush doesn't have to veto it. He can sign it knowing he doesn't have to do anything about leaving. If the clause irritates him, he can "signing statement" it away. No problem.

The carnage continues.

[bigtree]

53. Bush is still without the funds he says he needs to continue his occupation

He has already rejected Congress' initiatives. He is effectively defunded until he agrees to withdraw.

[Robbien]

54. Where is he out of funds

He speaks words about not liking the bill, but so what. He has done that many times before. You say he rejects. Where? I see no rejection yet.

He will sign the bill. With or without a signing statement.

He will have plenty of money to keep killing Iraqis.

[bigtree]

55. If he signs the bill he will have repudiated all of the rhetoric

about a withdrawal being a retreat.

You have been too obsessed with attacking the Democrat's bill to notice that Bush is actively defying Congress's legislative will that he withdrawal with his obnoxious, autocratic remarks after this bill's passage. It's amazing that you think he'll actually accept this withdrawal legislation in the face of his vow to veto whatever reaches his desk.

here's Bush (in case you missed it):

" . . . a narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job."

"Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal."

"As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070323-1.html

[Robbien]

56. You keep thinking all these public Bushie words have real consequences with his base

Not in the GOP world.

Bush will sign the bill if it gets to his desk.
Within minutes, or within twenty-four hours of signing, the media will be bleating the Dems fell into Bush's trap. Funding bill signed. Withdrawal statement is worth less than a bunch of rolled up used toilet paper. Let the bombs drop. Par--TAY.

[bigtree]

58. incredible

by your prescription, we should pursue something which has absolutely no support and reject supporting that which is being actively rejected by the White House.

[Robbien]

60. No, I am saying we pursue what essentially we believe is right

Don't put forth bills which gives money for bombs.
Let those bills gather dust. In fact shred the bill proposal and burn it in the fireplace. Never never ever let it come up for a vote.

Put forth bills we believe in. Those we which speak to us.

Pushing a bill which gives $99B to drop bombs on Iraqi families is not something that speaks to me.

[bigtree]

61. The inaction allows those bombs to be dropped indefinitely

How long are you willing to wait for the ideal Congress who would support your ideal legislation? How long should the troops have to wait before we compromise and begin to bring them home?

[Robbien]

64. Two days ago the bill and the funding was dead. You woke it up and said Here Bush, Money!!!

The bill was dead.
Dead Dead Dead

Until Pelosi Tom-Delay-like twisted arms
the bill was DEAD.

We didn't have to wait. The time was here. The time was NOW. Dead bill, no more dead carnage.

But no.
People like you wanted the bill.
People like you brought it to life. Baby steps you kept yelling.
People like you twisted arms of people like me

People like you put forth the idea of a phony exit clause
and people like you gave Bush money to continue dropping bombs.

Our wait was over.
But people like you said no
we want the carnage to continue.

[bigtree]

65. At that point, Bush still had not been legislatively confronted

There was not/is not enough congressional support for the option of merely voting 'no' on supplementals.

The equation of Rep. Pelosi with Delay is ludicrous and despicable. You seem to believe you are the only one who cares about the carnage in Iraq. You've misrepresented the bill and its potential for moving Bush and ending the occupation.

More pernicious, you want us to wait until you can cobble together enough folks of like mind in Congress to effect your rejected proposal(s). How long will our soldiers have to wait until that happens? How long will our soldiers have to wait in Iraq until we compromise and begin to bring them home?

[Robbien]

67. I didn't need to cobble anyone. The bill was DEAD

No one had to do a thing.



Dead bill = No more money

Contractors stop supplies

Contractors stop paying all workers

no new ammunitions

nothing to do but twiddle thumbs

looking around. . .
hey, no more dead Iraqis.

[bigtree]

70. At that point there would be nothing to confront Bush

except a rejection of a funding bill. That action would have directed him to do NOTHING. It would have restricted him from doing NOTHING. It would have restricted him from none of the destruction he's presently directing.

I don't see how that is preferable to the advancement of a withdrawal bill which he has already said doesn't give him the money he needs to continue, will reject. He is 'defunded' from continuing. He will continue to be 'defunded' until he agrees to withdraw.

[Jcrowley]

57. It's a terrible bill

It's toothless.

It also has THE big wish of the BUSH-CHENEY junta has one of the benchmarks for withdrawal. That being that the Iraqi government must cede oil rights through contractual obligations to Western, primarily US, multi-national energy corporations.

None of even this really matters as the bill by the time it makes it through the Senate will be unrecognizable and then get vetoed.

There are very few states(wo)men around these days. Just alot of folks using rhetoric such as "pragmatism" for political cover.

[bigtree]

59. when it is vetoed, where will you stand against Bush's defiance of Congress?

How do you intend to confront Bush with your empty (legislative) hand?

[Robbien]

62. Ha. Vetoed. Yeah right. Why would he veto such a great funding bill?

He gets $99B for bombs.
He gets to thumb his nose at dumb Dems.
And he gets to continue his war games until he leaves the Oval Office.

Veto. Ha!
He is throwing parties.

[bigtree]

63. I don't know how anyone can ally with an argument which isn't supported in Congress;

is supplanted by another one which is advancing, already rejected by the opponents; and would join with that opposition in calling for its defeat.

[EFerrari]

78. Because it is our job to create support in Congress, not to

follow support in Congress.

[bigtree]

79. The opponents of this legislation failed to get the necessary amount of support for their proposal

It looks like the other proposals are not getting any traction in the Senate. At some point there will be a need to confront Bush for his defiance of Congress' will in regard to the withdrawal legislation which has actually advanced and will likely be rejected. That obstinacy should not go unchallenged.

Unfortunately some folks think it's more important to keep challenging our own party over rejected proposals which aren't likely to come up with the necessary support to advance them in legislation in this Congress, than to challenge Bush for defying the SUPPORTED legislation which we hope will reach his desk.

[EFerrari]

80. Yes, that's right. It is important to keep challenging the Democrats

to do better. That doesn't preclude also confronting Junior.

[Jcrowley]

66. False premise

The bill that should've been embraced was Lee's bill that was squashed as you know. In fact it didn't even get the chance to get squashed.

People have become accustomed to aiming low and then accepting even less. Not I.

[bigtree]

68. Rep. Lee found some value in it

as she voted against the bill:

"I find myself in the excruciating position of being asked to choose between voting for funding for the war or establishing timelines to end it," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California). "I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11003

[Jcrowley]

69. You do know how that worked out

don't you? Much whipping was done. There was coercion and manipulation involved. As well as threats to people's positions.

From Howard Zinn:
Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender their integrity, claiming to be “realistic.”

We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do.

Have you read the bill? If so could you point to the specific aspects of the bill that you find laudable?

Is it just because the Dems passed a bill that in the mildest of language semi-challenges Bush? Even saying that is a stretch.

C'mon this thing is another example of how pathetic and cowardly has become the American political theater.

Paging Paul Wellstone.

[bigtree]

71. It is the only legislative rebuke which has advanced in Congress since the invasion

4 years ago.

Lee's statement stands.

[Jcrowley]

72. That's right

Showing just how devoid of any real opposition we are.

Even if this bill were to sail through the Senate untouched and Bush signed it there would be no change in Iraq in the foreseeable future.

Again have you read the bill?

[bigtree]

73. Here's a link

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/bills/?billtype=H.R.&billnumb=1591&congress=110

[cooolandrew]

81. I had doubts initally but Pelosi is doing amazingt her job is to pass bills she has and that takes..

... compromise when half the house is made up of thugs to actually be able to meet them halfway is an amazing feat. The work of the American people now is to bolster her power and Pelosi will prove a very effective speaker of the house.

[bigtree]

84. I also applaud the Democrats who supported stricter proposals

who didn't stand in the way of passage, and those who actually joined with the majority and helped put the bill over the top.

[EFerrari]

85. No, the job the people is to continue to let her knew what we need

and what we expect.