I’m sorry, Senator Reid, Congressmen Obey and Murtha, and Big Tent Democrat, but September will be just like May, unless . . . you change this:
“I cannot vote … to stop funding for our troops who are in harm’s way.”
No, Rep. Obey, if you don’t change the Carl Levins the following is b.s.:
“We will transfer the Iraqi fight to September. Opponents of this war need to face this fact, just as the president and his allies need to face the fact that they are pursuing a dead-end policy.”
No, you have to change the thinking and voting of folks like Carl Levin (and countless other Congressional Democrats) or Congress will be just as subject to Bush blackmail – look, Bush plays chicken with the troops, with a vengeance – and you will always in the end give him the money he wants. So, Congressional Democrats, either deal with Bush’s game or go home.
In September, assuming the Democratic leadership goes along with John Murtha and takes Iraq Supplemental funds out of the regular fiscal 2008 defense bill (which will be voted on in July) and keeps Iraq funding `supplemental’, then there will be a vote on funding the Iraq occupation/war. And, presumably, the White House will want funding for the entire fiscal year, about $145 Billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now Harry Reid, John Murtha, and David Obey (and BTD) may want to give Mr. Bush half that, and put the sociopath on a short leash. But, once again, what will they do if Bush threatens to veto anything less than the full $145 Billion? I.e., replicating, more or less, his successful stance against the short-leash bill passed recently by the House? Does Congress pass a bill anyway that it knows he will veto? And is it then `forced’ (see `support the troops’ rhetoric buy-in by Carl Levin above) the second time round to put something together that Bush will not veto, just like it did a few days ago?
I can’t see any reason not to think so. Same old same old, and clueless about what has to change so there won’t be the same old same old.
Nonetheless, last Friday Big Tent Democrat wrote about the funding Iraq debacle — Iraq Supplemental: From the Ashes Can Rise The Not Funding Phoenix — with an inexplicably hopeful heart:
I believe, after this hard lesson, for Democrats in Congress, for progressive activists, for the Netroots, we can now go forward with a PRAGMATIC, realistic plan to end the Iraq debacle AND play smart politics. Yes, from these ashes should rise the Reid/Feingold … NOT funding after a date certain framework.
BTD thinks a Reid-Feingold-esque commitment by Democrats to a `no more Iraq funds’ date certain is the way to get us out of Iraq sometime soon. I don’t. Here’s what I think, in an exchange a couple days ago with a Reid-Feingold believer and BTD supporter:
…Reid-Feingold was a “big deal” because it supplied the best framework for ending the war, and would have sent a message to Bush that he can keep vetoing all he wants, but he was never going to get another blank check.
— Categorically Imperative
I don’t get that. There was no ‘best framework’ possible, so why pretend, that was obviously always a myth.
The only way to end the war before 2009 was and is to fly directly into Bush’s blackmailing (“I’m gonna leave them there without bullets or food.”) and just vote ‘no’ on Iraq funding. (Note how this has the opposite to do with creating, sponsoring, or managing any bill.) When 50% of either House does that, a funding bill cannot pass. It would be a bloody, loud, angry mess and I half-expect Bush would come very close to going through with his threats, but that’s the only way we would get out.— fairleft
Later in the same post BTD writes (emphasis added):
The intention to NOT fund the war after March 31, 2008 must be made the Dem position now.
The short leash must be pulled to a stop on March 31, 2008.
Say it now so you can end it then. If you do not say it now, then you can’t end it on March 31, 2008.
This is nonsense: If you say it now, that’s meaningless and Bush knows it. What matters is what a majority of Congress will do when Bush starts to play chicken, like he did this month. Look at it this way: what will the `date-certain’ Reid-Feingold statement makers do if troops are still in Iraq in the middle of March, 2008, and Bush is ranting, “I dare you to deny funding to troops in the field?”
They will back down and give the President his money, unless they are prepared for that tactic.
Unless the antiwar contingent in Congress makes the argument, starting now and very noisily, that it will not back down even if the President is playing chicken with the troops. Anti-warriors must make the case from now till September, and start to prepare and spin the public for the vicious, anti-democratic game the President will play. The public must be told why so many in Congress will not back down in September.
Rep. John Murtha, who I otherwise have a lot of respect for (he gave us `short-leash’: great idea!), wrote at HuffingtonPost on May 24:
Some have suggested that since the president refuses to compromise, Democrats should refuse to send him anything. I disagree. There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president.
But Democrats have not and will not “refuse to send him anything.” An authentically antiwar Congress definitely should and would pass an Iraq supplemental that is short-term/leash or even better has a hard deadline for pulling out the troops. The money runs out with troops in harm’s way only if the President vetoes such a bill (or bills).
The Democratic leadership, or failing them the Democratic anti-war leadership, must argue that the Commander-in-Chief commits treason by both vetoing funding and refusing to withdraw U.S. troops from danger. Congress must of course be prepared to replace Bush immediately through impeachment in those circumstances. This threat must be voiced, from now till September, or Bush will know September will be as push-over as the May one.
Actually, a much more likely scenario is that if the occupation isn’t funded the troops will be withdrawn. That withdrawal may `harm’ the President as his bloody dreams die, but the troops will be safer than ever, back home. Rather than policing a meaningless occupation; that’s `support the troops’.
My `just say no’ strategy already has the support of 51% of U.S. Democrats (see April 20-24 CBS/NYT Poll). In sum, as I said on talkleft a few days ago (emphasis added):
It won’t work today, it will work in September
in my humble opinion. But only if anti-warriors in Congress start the ball rolling and argue their case, and the real progressive netroots publicize and honor them, and attack (and ‘punish’) those (including Presidential candidates) not on the bandwagon.
“Yes, Mr. Bush, you’ve forced us into this game, so there you go.” Unfortunately, it’s the only effective way to deal with the bully.
[UPDATE: Just to add that I admire and appreciate BTD A LOT for his focus — and his effort to focus blogosphere attention — on getting the US out of Iraq.]
