House follows through on withdrawal measure — will it matter?

November 15, 2007

The good news is, the House narrowly passed an Iraq funding bill with some key provisions that many Americans have been demanding for quite a while now, including a withdrawal timeline. The bad news is, the chances of the measure becoming law are almost zero.

The House yesterday approved a war funding bill that directs President Bush to withdraw most troops from Iraq by the end of next year, escalating a feud between the White House and congressional Democrats over spending priorities in wartime.

The measure, part of a bill that would provide $50 billion to fund the war over the next four months, was passed 218 to 203, with one member voting present. It provides about one-quarter of Bush’s 2008 request for $196 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“We want a plan in Iraq. . . . We want stability in the Middle East,” Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said minutes before the vote. “We want to put a plan in place that holds the president accountable.”

While there were a handful of progressive Dems who voted against the measure because it didn’t go quite far enough, the funding package included some worthwhile policies. First, of course, the spending bill would give the administration $50 billion for war efforts on the condition that withdrawal begins within 30 days, ending in December of next year. The legislation also prohibited permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, blocks U.S. control of Iraqi oil, and limits interrogation techniques to methods authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual.

Not surprisingly, Republicans aren’t fond of the proposal. Senate Republicans will predictably require a 60-vote majority — a hurdle Dems can’t clear — and the White House has vowed a veto.

The amusing angle, however, is hearing the way the Bush gang dismisses the majority.

Here was White House Press Secretary Dana Perino at yesterday’s briefing:

“Once again, the Democratic leadership is starting this debate with a flawed strategy, including a withdrawal date for Iraq, despite the gains our military has made over the past year, despite having dozens of similar votes in the past that have failed, and despite their pledge to support the troops. And once again, they plan to send the President a bill that they know he will veto. This is for political posturing and to appease radical groups.”

Asked which “radical groups” are being “appeased,” Perino explained, “I am talking about MoveOn.org and Code Pink, in particular.”

This is all rather silly. For one thing, MoveOn and Code Pink aren’t particularly pleased with congressional Democrats, so it’s hard to characterize them as calling the shots on the Hill. More importantly, though, the White House may or may not be aware of it, but the majority of the country approves of the approach Dems embraced yesterday. The president’s press secretary, in other words, effectively called the majority of Americans “radical.”

The development to watch, at this point, is whether Senate Dems push Senate Republicans to literally filibuster the spending bill. The leadership is apparently considering it, and it would, at a minimum, push the debate to a new level.

Stay tuned.

I am tired of waiting for Senate Dems to do what is right. Whether to ‘push Senate Republicans to literally filibuster’ isn’t something that requires much thought, if Senate Dems would do what they are supposed to do. I’m sure there will be some hemming and hawing, but the Dems ultimately will not make them filibuster–and we’ll be let down–yet again. Prove me wrong, Harry.

  • While there were a handful of progressive Dems who voted against the measure because it didn’t go quite far enough,

    Way to make us look weak, guys. Today there are going to be thousands of knuckle-dragging assholes all over the country telling people in their classrooms or offices, “Yeah, but the Democrats only passed this by 15 votes” (instead of having to admit to 20 or 25, or whatever).

    Remember, this is what these so-called progressive persons found not good enough to vote for (!!!):

    First, of course, the spending bill would give the administration $50 billion for war efforts on the condition that withdrawal begins within 30 days, ending in December of next year. The legislation also prohibited permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, blocks U.S. control of Iraqi oil, and limits interrogation techniques to methods authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual.

    Do we really need these people calling themselves Democrats?!? I’m beginning to think all the progressives on the Internet who are continually belittling and berating everyone and telling us we can’t quite do anything- because none of it goes far enough for them– should be tossed overboard.

  • I feel like Charlie Brown with the football. I keep hoping the Lucy Senate will hold it so it can be kicked but at the last moment…..

  • Maybe someone should construct a little daycare garden at the side of the capitol building where these progressives can play on playground toys all day long while other Democrats set the agenda and do the work.

  • What work would that be Swan? Standing idly by whilst the Dictator-In-Chief destroys our Constitutional Republic?

    I noticed that political solidarity is very important to you –much like it is to the NeoCon Party. Principles, conscience, duty, Constitution be damned, party before country.

    Does that describe the way you feel, pretty much? Or do you genuinely love this country, political affiliation notwithstanding?

  • OT but interesting- Did you know the Republicans replaced the statue of Thomas Starr King in the national statuary collection in the Capitol building with a statue of Ronald Regan? Who was Thomas Starr King?

    Well, according to Wikipedia:

    “During the Civil War, he spoke zealously in favor of the Union and was credited by Abraham Lincoln with saving California from becoming a separate republic.”

    So I guess the Republicans are anti-Union. Instead, they wanted a statue of a guy who- as we have seen it a recent CB post- took the chances he had to thumb his nose at racial minorities.

  • What work would that be Swan? Standing idly by whilst the Dictator-In-Chief destroys our Constitutional Republic?

    JKap, you’ve got to stop fooling yourself that you can persuade everyone to think that tongue-in-cheek criticism is something different than what it is by your foolish comments. Of course, I would prefer those Democrats to work on a real agenda, and make bills like the one they helped look weak look stronger when those bills need their support the most, instead of enigmatically turning traitor or coward, and claiming it has something to do with their principles. If they scuttle us when they can really make a difference though, maybe they’re about as good as kids playing on a playground and can do more for us by staying out of the way. Real fighters like Hillary Clinton who are not just out to make fun of everyone facing them in whatever direction they turn can make the real decisions.

  • I’m interested in two things.

    1. Will a Senate fillibuster occur?

    and

    2. If this bill fails in the Senate, what will the Democrats do then? Do they have the guts to really follow through on standing their ground? Or will they refuse to play hard-ball and return to the tea-party scenario they seem to be so fond of?

    I’d suggest that if it fails in the Senate, House Democrats should decrease the funding amount by about 5 billion, present and make available to the public a cost analysis justifying the decreased funding, keep the timetable for withdrawal, and present the bill again. Then repeat this move if the bill fails again (with votes or Bush’s veto), decreasing the funding amount by a few billion each time until it can’t reasonably be decreased any more. And keep sending it to the legislature/Bush.

  • Yes, and her real decisions to endorse the Patriot Act twice, the Defense Authorization Act of 2006, AUMF in Iraq, and Kyl-Lieberman demonstrate the kind of leadership this country needs.

    Funny. The NeoCon Party agrees with her on these things.

    And I assume that you do as well Swan.

  • As I understand it, this is essentially a fully-funded re-deployment bill, but somewhere I read or heard or somehow understood that the timeline was non-binding – which may be what the few Dems who voted against it – I think there were 4, among them Kucinich – objected to.

    While I certainly applaud them even getting this far with the vote, we all know that if it passes in the Senate, it will do so with the barest of majorities, which means Bush’s eventual veto stands. Where the Dems could start showing some spine, is in refusing to compromise, and taking the position that “here’s the funding – if you veto it, it’s you who is hurting the troops, not us.”

    I hate to get too psychological here, but what is happening could not be more dysfunctional and co-dependent.

    What the Dems need to get into their heads is that their gaining the majoirty in 2006 was their opportunity to change the music, as well as the dance steps – to lead, not follow. This works for them – they introduce the bills and end up passing them – up to the point where the other side refuses to go along – Bush vetoes the bills. But instead of saying, “no, this is the music we’re dancing to, and this is the dance we’re doing,” they give in and go back to the old music and the old steps because they know how that works – even if it doesn’t benefit them or accomplish what they say they want to do. It’s so classically co-dependent, it isn’t funny.

    It needs to go back, but this time, it needs to be binding – the way they win is not to keep weakening their position, but to start strengthening it. to send the message that if legislation has to keep going back, it will do so in a less accommodating form, not a more accommodating form.

    If only they would do it.

  • Ms. Perino paints the Democratic Congressional leadership with radical groups when she should be greatly concerned that the Congressional Democratics are tapping into and politically refledting Code Redwhiteandblue. She will be sent out hence forth to our national press corps to challenge more and more the reality based community. I hope she doesn’t end up like that guy named Baghdad Bob or something like that. -Kevo

  • Swan says: “Real fighters like Hillary Clinton” What, Real fighters like Hillary Clinton? Like how she fought for her support of drivers licences this morning? She bailed as soon as Spitzer did. I’d bet Hillary’s campain had Spitzer drop his idea because it was killing her.

  • The issue does not require that the senate pass the bill, or filibuster the bill, or even vote on the bill.

    The issue doesn’t even require that the House pass the bill by a veto-proof majority.

    All that needs to happen is for the House to stand up and promote—by a ONE-VOTE MAJORITY, if that’s all they can muster—a steadfast refusal to continue funding Mr. Bush’s War until withdrawal specifics are set in stone.

    THEN give him the funding, with the caveat that if he breaks his work, the money-spigot gets turned off.

    All it takes is 218 votes in the House to stop this thing. All it takes is 218 votes in the House to tell Bush to STFU. All it takes is 218 votes in the House to tell the Limbaughs, the O’Reillys; the Hannitys and Becks and Malkins and Coultergeists of the Reich Noise Machine to F*** off.

    Maybe THEN we’ll start to see neocon heads exploding, and uberschweinen wingnuts entering the final phases of their extinction event. Maybe they could just rapture themselves….

  • “All that needs to happen is for the House to stand up and promote—by a ONE-VOTE MAJORITY, if that’s all they can muster—a steadfast refusal to continue funding Mr. Bush’s War until withdrawal specifics are set in stone.”

    Sounds good so far. Then what?

  • But seriously, I would be fairly satisfied to see a three-month (instead of six) supplemental funding bill go through without withdrawal clauses this time. That’s something I think Democrats honestly could get away with stonewalling on if it came to that.

  • Um…Cal…you have my permission to read my entire post. I promise not to hunt you down and mercilessly waterboard you into a state of fearful confusion if you do. ‘Kay?

    And there’s not much of a difference between six-month increments and three-month increments—except that it cuts the time for trying to counter “the Little Lord Fauntelroy of Pennsylvania Avenue” in half….

  • If we had real Democratic leadership they would be looking at what the American people want, making actual resolutions that have teeth, and then breaking the kneecaps of any Dem who votes against them.

    Democracy is not a real hard concept. Only a small fraction of the country wants Bush to keep getting what he wants. If we had real leadership that fraction would be isolated and marginalized.

  • I noticed that political solidarity is very important to you –much like it is to the NeoCon Party. Principles, conscience, duty, Constitution be damned, party before country. -JKap

    That’s because he’s a Neodem. It’s more about ‘Democrat’ versus ‘Republican’ for people like him; the Constitution, civil rights, and people of the world be damned.

    He only cares what the score is.

    Principles have no place among the Neodems.

    (No offense to the Neodems in Austrailia. Perhaps, though, you should choose a name with less negative connotation?)

  • IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE HOUSE DOES BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO GET BY WITHOUT REALLY DOING ANYTHING BUT TALK AND THAT IS CHEAP.. THERE ARE 30 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE THAT ARE JEWISH SO THERE WILL BE NO CUTTING OFF FUNDING OF THE WAR AND NO BRING HOME THE TROOPS UNTIL ISRAEL HAS BEEN PLEASED AND THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE

  • BUSH HAS ALREADY BANKRUPPTED THE COUNTRY AND IS NOW GOING TO BORROW MORE MONEY TO FUND HIS PRIVATE WAR FOR ISRAEL. HOW COME HE CAN SPENT 30 BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE ISRAELI MILITARY AND NO SUPPORT HEALTH CARE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. JUST LOOK WHAT THIS COUNTRY COULD HAVE DONE WITH THE 4 TRILLION, 4 TRILLION DOLLARS HE HAS BLOWED SINCE BEING IN OFFICE………………………………..

  • I’ve e-mailed my Senator Brown asking him to force the Repugs to filibuster.

    Now wake me up when that happens. And until it happens, it’s all manure.

    (Side note: Williams, keep writing in all-caps and implying all Jews are pro-war. That tactic always commands respect.)

  • Uhhh, Steve, I did read you’re whole post. House stonewalls Iraq funding, Rush Limbaugh’s head explodes, yadda, yadda. Like I said, sound great but you obviously left out some steps. Right now it kind of reads like instructions for how to ride a unicorn (Step 1: find a unicorn). I’d really like to hear your entire idea though, so let’s back up: House stonewalls on supplemental funding for Iraq operations Iraq . That’s day one.

    So, what happens on day 2? How do all the players respond? What does the White House do? How does it play in the press? How do Democrats defend against to inevitable charges that they are starving out our troops in the field and leaving them to die? (Remember, they suck at PR.) How does the public respond. How does it play in the Blue Dog’s districts. How do they react? How long can Democrats hold the line, assuming the White House does not immediately and enthusiastically embrace your proposal? What are the president’s options for keeping troops in the field without supplemental funding? What are the real-world prospects of succeeding? How does this impact on the next election if we don’t? How can we rule out, with an acceptable level of confidence, the prospect buying ourselves another Republican White House, another Republican Congress and ten more years in Iraq?

    Just tell me how you plan to deal with all that stuff and I’ll make a sign and go march in the street with you. I sure would like to see Rush Limbaugh’s head explode.

  • The other technique that commands respect is bad spelling (bankruppted) and bad grammar (he has blowed). Actually both all-caps comments “blow.”

    But back on topic – the House holds all the cards here. All they have to do is refuse to pass any funding bill that doesn’t include a firm timetable for withdrawal and the other provisions that Bush doesn’t like.

    They have the cards, but do they have the cajones? Unfortunately, I think we already know the answer.

  • CalD, I think the American people are with us on this one. Let Rush’s head explode, and let O’Reilly bluster. On some topics, it takes more than hype to win the argument.

  • I just realized, when I mentioned instructions for how to ride a unicorn before, a better analogy would be the recipe for turning lead into gold.

    Step 1: Get some lead.
    Step 2: Turn it into gold.

    (We already know how to do Step 1, so that only leaves Step 2. How hard could it be?)

  • Even if they do force an actual filibuster, I can see the CNN Headline now:

    “Democrats Delay Funding for Troops with Senate Stall Tactics”

    Though the stalling would actually be the fault of the Republicans, it doesn’t matter because the DEMOCRATS forced them to ACTUALLY filibuster instead of striking a bargain and killing the bill. Which, of course, would be all because of the evil Democrats, too. Something tells me the media will somehow always play the angle that the Democrats are at fault. I used to read CNN for all my news, but in the past year or more I’ve definitely noticed a conservative plunge in the bias.

  • OkieFromMuskogee: I think you would find that a majority of people would like to have a million dollars too. It’s a question of how far they would be willing to go with you to get it.

  • I still don’t understand, if Dems want to stand their ground, why won’t they protest a veto by sending the same bill to Bush over and over, or nothing at all? Why did they capitulate in the face of a veto in the spring and give Bush everything he wanted with no strings attached and why is it expected they will do so again after making a meaningless gesture?

  • Please —my dem’s look to be laughable, ineffective and as stubborn as Bush to my international friends…Reid and Pelosi need to quit beating a dead horse and get on with gov’t’s business. For Shame.

  • The vast majority of the public is radical because they don’t agree with Bill O’Lielly!

    Don’t you GET it?

  • On one hand you have those who say it doesn’t go far enough – so they don’t vote for it. And then when it fails you have all these people tarring the Democrats for not doing anything.

    Bah.

  • What happens on Day 2, Cal?

    Same thing as on Day 1. All the House has to do is to hold the line. It’s a simple order, really:

    HOLD AT ALL COSTS.

    Is the incessant caving to the WH worth another life? Another widow; another orphan; another family in nuclear meltdown?

    No—and the People want this war over and done with. End this war—HOLD AT ALL COSTS—and the People will rally to the party that accomplishes that goal.

    End this war—and the smoke-&-mirrors game of the WH is going to implode. “The War” is the only thing keeping the bums in power now as it is.

    Damn the “but what if” consequenses; they’re the tools of the Reich noise machine. We don’t have to listen to them. Shun them, and they’ll evaporate.

    HOLD AT ALL COSTS….

    • Comments are closed.