It may not be a ‘blank check,’ but…

May 22, 2007

The AP reports:

Flinching in the face of a veto threat, Democratic congressional leaders neared agreement with the Bush administration Tuesday on legislation to pay for the Iraq war without setting a timeline for troop withdrawal.

Several officials said the emerging compromise bill would cost about $120 billion, including as much as $8 billion for Democratic domestic priorities such as disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina victims and farmers hurt by drought.

After a bruising veto struggle over war funding, congressional leaders in both political parties said they hoped the compromise would be cleared for President Bush’s signature by Friday.

Despite the concession, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters that the legislation would be the first war-funding bill sent to Bush since the U.S. invasion of Iraq “where he won’t get a blank check.”

OK, but what does that mean, exactly? Bush wanted full funding without strings; Dems wanted full funding with a withdrawal timeline, or barring that, benchmarks with teeth.

The details are still a little fuzzy right now, but this looks like a very unwise capitulation by Democratic leaders. Reid pointed to standards that the Iraqis have to meet in order to qualify for aid, but if the AP report is accurate, “Bush would have authority to order the money to be spent regardless of how the government in Baghdad performed.”

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s basically the plan Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) offered last week, which enjoyed strong GOP support, but which Dems overwhelmingly rejected just five days ago.

In other words, it’s a defeat.

At this point, and with all due respect, Harry Reid’s sales pitch needs a little work.

QUESTION: How about exit dates and timelines or withdrawal strategies or language in the bill? Isn’t that a significant concession by your side?

REID: First of all, it hasn’t been determined what we’re going to have in that. But keep in mind the progress that we have made. Even the Republicans now have timelines. Remember, they wouldn’t accept our timelines in the bill that was vetoed? And they’re talking now about a plan B, which basically is what was in the vetoed bill. So I think we have to look at the progress that has been made. We now have the timeline that the Republicans have set, and that’s this September. And that’s the very least. And then, as I’ve indicated, the defense authorization, we’re going to start right where we’ve left off with this bill, continuing our push to change direction in the war in Iraq. And now we’re being joined by Republicans.

When Reid refers to the “timeline that the Republicans have set,” I think he’s referring to Warner’s amendment from last week. But that’s not good news at all — Warner’s measure was weak. It’s easy for the president to work around. It’s exactly why Dems voted against it five days ago.

Besides, by saying we “now have the timeline that the Republicans have set,” it sounds as if the Dems’ policy is to go along with what the GOP was willing to give them — which wasn’t much.

By all indications, this is a big mistake, and gives Bush a spending bill he’ll sign with a smirk.

Dems went into this holding practically all the cards — public support, power of the purse, a relatively united caucus, and reality. Then they folded.

They sold us out AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Sounds like a full-court cave-in to me. I can’t fathom what there is about that monkeylike little president that puts the juju hex on Democrats so that they cower in layers like frogs in a glass cage with a big snake. Democrats must be aware how short the electorate’s patience is with getting something done – maybe the popular caricature of them as thick-eyeglassed geeks with no spine and a fascination for endless debate is closer to the truth that some would find comforting.

  • no wonder congress’ approval rating is in the cellar, almost as low as bush’s…….

  • “…Democratic congressional leaders neared agreement…”
    (emphasis added)

    It’s not a done deal, folks. Call your members of Congress and tell them not to support their “leaders” on this.

  • Once again, Congressional Dems have allowed themselves to fall into the trap that Suskind warned us about. Dems are still allowing Bush to dictate his own sordid realities, and all of us are left marveling and complaining with incredulity about what he’s done.

    Dems would have done better to march from the Capitol to the WH en mass, carrying signs saying “No Funds without Benchmarks!” and then staged an impromptu rally in Layfayette Park.

    But they still don’t get it. Bush feeds on their weakness. He needs it and he counts on it. He’s willing to take every issue and the entire country to the brink, knowing that Dems will be more reasonable and eventually back down. They do, and he prevails. Time after time, we see the same thing, same result, and we’re losing our democracy in the meantime.

    Now, given the votes in Congress on the two previous “emergency” supplementals, it may be that Dems couldn’t win this one. That’s fine. They made a point, and that’s not entirely worthless. What needs to be done now is to go after Bush on an issue they can win, and pursue it relentlessly. All those “compulsory processes” they’ve been threatening? Issue subpoenas on all of them immediately. No more screwing around. Drop the no-confidence measure and impeach Gonzales. As someone here noted a couple weeks ago, the process will reveal it’s own damaging evidence and Bush will be hurt in the process. Let no lie or excuse go unanswered.

    Congressional Dems must get it through their heads that BushCo thinks they’re histories actors — and they will be until they are stopped.

  • We need to flood our Congresspersons’ offices with angry faxes. E-mails won’t do, it has to be faxes.

  • Stupid fucking gutless motherfuckers.

    If anyone else needs a reminder of why some people see Democrats as weak on national security, it’s because they support *Republican* bullshit when *Republicans* tell them to.

    I hope Harry Reid feels good about fooling himself, because he’s *not* fooling anyone else with this fucking cave-in.

  • I don’t have access to a personal fax machine – can’t do it from work – where’s an email distribution list when I need it?

  • The test votes foreshadowed all of this pretty strongly.

    The Democrats do not have the votes for a legislated withdrawal.

    And, they do not the votes for continued confrontation with the President.

    This is not some kind of tactical error. This is facing the reality that the votes in Congress are not there.

  • Whether you cave in by inches, while loudly protesting (like the Dems), or cave in wholeheartedly, all at once (like 109), the final result is the same: total surrender. No wonder Dems are branded as “weak on defense”; the dimwits can’t defend either themselves or us, even when holding all the necessary ammo.

    And now that they proved how well they can swallow, what odds that a new, even larger request for money will be coming up soon, in view of this:

    http://tinyurl.com/34kh9d

  • They need to send the same bill he already vetoed. Over and over and over. When he is desperate for the money, he’ll sign. And forget about any whiny right wingers asking when the Dems will send a signable spending bill. The bill WAS signable – the president chose to veto it. Why? Because it had Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiimeliiiiiiiiiiiiiines (whiny voice). We can’t have Tiiiiiiiiiiimeliiiiiiiiiiiiines! They’re BAAAAD.

    This is seriously ticking me off.

  • What, exactly, will it take for the Democrats to grow a pair?

    This guy has a sub-30% approval rating, and all of the polls show overwhelming, not just a majority, but overwhelming, support for the Democrats’ agenda.

    Yet they deflate. They pander to him.

    Why? WHY?

  • The message the Democratic party always sends is “Why bother?” The Congressional branch of the party have been cowards for the 40 years I’ve followed politics. That will never change. They deserve the permanent minority status they seem to crave.
    Not another nickel. Not another vote. Bleep them.
    It sure sucks when Ralph Nader can say “I told you so.”

  • So, the best they could have done was stand on the bills they did pass, offer Bush the choice and wait to see if Bush blinked. WOuld he have ended up signing one of those bills into law, or would he have willingly held the troops hostage?

    Otherwise – and I know this is not a popular way of looking at it – unless the Dems could keep their own caucus together and get enough GOP votes to make their legislation veto-proof, the upper hand was always Bush’s.

    Yeah, it makes me sick, too – but it makes me sicker that Republicans are not voting the way their own constituents want them to – when such a large percentage of Americans support holding Bush accountable, a lot of that is coming from Republicans and independents – and they are not being well-served.

  • My guess is that Reid and Pelosi read the tea leaves and found that the outright yanking of funds for the troops in Iraq didn’t play well with the electorate. I know, I know, the polls say different but it’s one thing to comtemplate withdrawl from Iraq in the abstract and another to actually have it happen. FWIW, I never thought the Democrats would force the issue, and Feingold himself can’t be too surprised (if very disappointed) given how the bill he sponsored with Reid lost, and lost badly.

  • Bruce, that framework seems fatalistic. Isn’t it just as true that Bush doesn’t have the votes to pass funding without restrictions? Neither side can get what it wants; in a normal world, that would mean good faith negotiations with both sides engaged in give and take. Bush doubled down and refused to budge. We blinked pure and simple.

    The real question is if neither side had the votes for an outright win, and neither side would budge, who would the voters punish for the stalemate. And while the full-of-bluster Bushies and the Beltway Talkers all hypothosized that the Dems would lose the PR battle, all of the polling to date suggests otherwise: the polled favored the Dems over Bush, and trusted Dems over Bush on the issue of Iraq.

    All the Dems did today is tell the majorities who voted them in last November to change things in Iraq that their efforts were wasted, that this Congress is no more willing to hear their message than the 109th. And unlike the standoff with Bush, there can be little doubt who will get blamed by voters for Congressional failings: the Dems who are running Congress.

    So I agree this was foreshadowed, and I agree we dont have the votes for a pure win. But we did have the votes to keep Bush from getting one as well, and we just plain and simple gave that up.

  • So maybe I didn’t really hear this, but I thought I heard on NPR yesterday or over the weekend a report that the bill also included CUTS worth billions of dollars in Democratic-priority domestic spending in order to “sweeten” the pot for the Repulsigans. WTH?? If I’m wrong, please someone correct me, and I’ll get my hearing aid adjusted. If not, then why aren’t we hearing a hell of a lot more about this side of the equation??

  • Anne, I agree the upper hand was with Bush, but not for the reasons you suggest. First, the upper hand was with Bush because the WH simply has the bigger microphone, particularly with a brow-beaten press.

    But the begger reason Bush had the upper hand can best be described by asking “would you really want to play chicken with someone who is insane?” This stubborn SOB really would drive right into you. Many have said it before on here, but the sad reality of his upper hand is that it is a case of the Dems caring more about the lives of the troops than Bush, to whom they are expendable pawns.

  • Bruce @15 and Anne @20 have it pegged right. The votes just aren’t there and that’s the reality, folks. If you want to send angry faxes how about flooding the lines of every halfwit in Connecticut who put Bush’s poodle Lieberman back in office, or the army of retards who voted for Bush in the first place…..twice!!

    The outrage is understandable and I share it as much as anyone, but slamming the Dems isn’t going to help. It’s not the will to act that they lack, only the total majority in both houses of Congress to make it happen.

    Our time is coming, just savor the smashing victory looming ever closer on the horizon.

  • The President essentially can do anything he wants because, like a person who goes limp and becomed dead weight, there is little that can be done with him. It’s a tactic that has succeeded for him before and one he will use time and time again. With no clear 60% to overturn the veto (and the Pres. has managed to bully his caucus into presented a somewhat united front on this), what else can Dems do? He knows he won’t be impeached, so why cooperate with anything Dems want? Nothing can be done with someone who breaks every rule and law with impunity because the AMERICAN PEOPLE don’t have the stomach for a full-fledged impeachment.

  • Our time is coming. How many times have I heard that phrase?

    Strangely enough, it never does come.

    And funding this to “save” the troops – well, you must not be hearing the numbers of troops and civilians dying daily. Funding the troops is condemning them to death.

  • Nanuq @23, that’s because when Democrats have the choice between good policy and good politics, they prove how selfless and sensible they are by abandoning *both*. You or I might think, “Can we at least get *something* out of this deal?” and try to get one or the other, but not Democrats.

    Democrats are happy to piss away political power, or policy benefits, but they can prove their virtue twice as much by squandering twice as much. This way, when Republicans say, “You’re just playing politics!” Democrats can reply, “No we’re not, because this *hurts* us!” and when Republicans say, “You’re acting all superior by making policy we don’t like!” Democrats can reply, “No we’re not, because this is *shitty* policy.”

    Two reasons to do something good would be *twice* as much incentive for any normal, functional political party, its leaders, and its members, but for some reason, Democrats are so cowed by Republicans, so browbeaten by Bush and his 28% approval rating, that two reasons *to* do something are *twice* as many reasons as they need to run screaming in the other direction, pissing their pants at the thought someone might accuse them of getting their shit together and actively doing something they want that would be good for anyone except Republicans.

    But hey, I could be wrong: maybe I’m not being cynical enough.

  • Bruce Wilder said (#15):

    The test votes foreshadowed all of this pretty strongly.

    The Democrats do not have the votes for a legislated withdrawal.

    And, they do not the votes for continued confrontation with the President.

    This is not some kind of tactical error. This is facing the reality that the votes in Congress are not there.

    Unfortunately, folks, this is the reality we face. With Joe Fucking Lieberman making his threat again to caucus with the Republicans, thus dividing the Senate 50-50 and putting the Republicans back in charge with Cheney’s vote, this is the way things are.

    Fact: we don’t have the votes to impose cloture on a filibuster, and we don’t have a veto-proof majority. And in the House we do not have a majority big enough to survive the “Blue Dog Democrats” acting “responsibly” and voting with the Republicans.

    Scream and yell, jump up and down, rain down imprecations. And if you want, throw in holding your breath till things change. None of these will have any effect (though if you hold your breath long enough, you will die).

    It’s not going to change till all those people out there in America who have abandoned Bush abandon voting for their Republican Senator and Congressman. That’s the way it is. Want change? Work for 2008 and a veto-proof majority. When you hear your fellow citizens complain about this event and blame Congress, hold up a mirror for them and remind them they’re the ones who cast votes.

    I do wish it was otherwise, but as they say, you can pee in this hand and wish in that hand, and you know which one’s going to fill up first.

  • And let me add an adenda here. The tactical situation is that the troops *will* need more money eventually, and the danger for the Dems is to hand the issue of who really supports the troops back to the Repubs if they just keep sending the same or similar bill to Bush for the inevitable veto.

    We’ve just barely started getting the public consciousness to shift a little bit on that and it would be suicidal to give the enemies of freedom yet another excuse to slander our character.

    Prior to the 2008 elections, the only thing that might force Bush’s hand is if the entire 70% of the population who oppose his policies…..Democrat, Republican and Independent alike….were to stand up on their back legs and publicly demand it. That hasn’t happened yet and until it does we’re just going to have to keep doing the best we can with what we’ve got, for the moment.

  • Actually, curmudgeon, I’d argue vehemently (note: you’re all allowed a moment to roll your eyes and say, “Yes, we know.”) against that theory, and it’s not just because I like cussing at people in cyberspace – it’s because Reid and Pelosi have declared that they are *far* more afraid of Republicans attacking them from the front than from the loyal troops of the left attacking them from behind.

    I’m not a military history expert or anything, but I seem to remember a story about WWII (it’s possible this is a standard anecdote from Russian/USSR wars) about the front lines being forced to fight by guys behind them with guns pointed at them in case they flinched and tried to retreat. That’s why I think we’re well within our rights to attack our leaders for being ineffective cowards who enable Bush – not only because they *are*, but because they’ve shown, time and again, that they respond to such harsh criticism by changing their behavior. Bush and his allies attack them – and our leaders do what they’re told. Why shouldn’t we do the same thing?

    Fuck positive reinforcement for negative behavior.

  • The best we can with what we’ve got – oh my, that’s now exactly what we had before the last election. Electing the Democrats did exactly what? Oh my, jack shit.

  • Tom @29: We probably disagree on a lot, but I’m going to avoid discussing that, except to point out that the Senate rules for this session are configured so that even if Lieberman were to show his fealty by having a McConnell kiss to go with his Bush kiss, Dems would *still* control the Senate (there was a DailyKos diary about this a few months ago).

    Curmudgeon @30: “yet another excuse to slander our character.” Republicans don’t need excuses to slander our character. They will do it whenever there is an election they fear losing, which is to say, every fucking time. I understand that it makes sense to avoid giving our enemies extra ammunition, but these guys are so far removed from reality, that they and their leader just vetoed a bill that would give the troops more money, better equipment, and better benefits, and accused *US* of failing to support the troops. This is not about logic. This is not about reality. This is about Democrats lacking the balls to stick together and do the right thing sooner rather than later, and deciding that they’d rather appease a delusional extortionist than save American lives, power, and money.

    But hey, apparently there’s a market for rationalizations like that, so you guys would, if you wanted to provide advice for the party, do far better than I would 😉

  • It’s not a blank check: it’ll have the signature of the Democratic Congress right there at the bottom.

  • Like I said yesterday, Fred Thompson’s little red truck will be garaged at the White House come January, 2009.

    The “Democratic Congress” that was the result of the 2006 midterm referendum on Bush and his war has just shown the people who voted for Democrats that Democrats won’t even try to oppose Bush or his war. They have made the world safe again for Rove, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice and the worst president in American history.

    This is a pure Invertebrate Moment. The Republicans have seen the future, and all their fears have evaporated.

  • Lame. Oh well, I guess I’m free on a certain Tuesday in November from now on. Not like it did any good.

  • The time has come, it might be said, for the People to acknowledge that one half of their Government consists of a criminal enterprise—and the other half of that same, said Government lacks the political stomach to do anything about it. This establishes that the Government is both Corrupt, and Cowardly.

    A particular gentleman who once resided in the White House wrote a letter once, many years ago, defending the Second Amendment as a reasonablecountermeasure to just such a Government as we have today; one that both unwilling to refrain from wrongful action, and one that is equally unwilling to do what is rightfully necessary as a countermeasure to that wrongful action.

    That “particular gentleman,” by the way, was Thomas Jefferson, and any Democrat who cannot intellectually contemplate his advice—not blatantly and haphazardly embrace it, but likewise not blatantly and “self-righteously” reject it without at least philosophizing as to the merits of rising up against tyranny and ineptitude in Government as the Founders of the Republic chose to do over 230 years ago—should refrain from calling him/herself a Democrat, for they do nothing more than the cheapen the meaning of such a grand word….

  • Chris:

    What I am pointing out is that there is a limited window (and it is closing) for the Democrats not to lose what majority they have. We keep sending the same bill and getting a veto, and most likely the time after this the Blue Dog Democrats in the House and the “moderates” in the Senate go vote with the Republicans on a “Republican” bill that is even worse, because it’s “the responsible thing to do” as they would explain it, to support the troops and all, and then we stand exposed with no working majority, with no party discipline, and far worse off than we are for all kinds of other things than this.

    Personally, I agree with most of what you have been saying here, and I wish to hell we had the kind of majority (even if Lieberman leaving the Dem caucus leaves them in control, it’s terrible publicity) that allowed a fight. I’m already pissed off listening to NPR say “Democrats have blinked” about this. Bet we cannot afford a bigger loss right now. We’re still at the guerilla war stage – you bleed them where you can, and try to limit them bleeding you, so you can continue the fight with the possibility of increasing the force (in our case, 2008). We might even end up bringing GOP moderates around by the fall (hope does indeed spring infernal). But we can’t lose what little we have right now, no matter how psychologically satisfying it would be.

  • I get the arguments that this result was inevitable here. But it doesn’t make any of this hurt any less.

    We don’t work and donate and argue and advocate and vote to put Democrats into office so that they can validate and perpetuate a tragic, inexplicable, horrifying policy that seems to sum up and exemplify everything that’s wrong with our “democracy”: the erosion of checks and balances, the disappearance of a constructively critical press, the terrifying indifference to the suffering of other peoples, how quick we are to toss away our own supposedly central values.

    Iraq is a nightmare in every sense, from how we got there to how it’s unfolded and, worst of all, what it’s shown us about ourselves. When you’re stuck in a nightmare, all you want to do is wake up. The Democrats’ caving on the spending measure, tactically justifiable though it might be, is at bottom a guarantee that the nightmare will continue for at least a little longer.

  • After a bruising veto struggle over war funding, congressional leaders in both political parties said they hoped the compromise would be cleared for President Bush’s signature by Friday.

    Bruising?

    Would that you could make it so.

    But then on second thought… they’ve got the best health care the American people can buy don’t they?
    So it’d just cost us more moola in the long run…
    Sort of like Iraq….

  • Maybe Reid & Co. will lash out at Bush with a surprise non-binding resolution to impeach. With any luck, the administration could actually die laughing.

  • This sucks, but Rome wasn’t built in a day.

    Unless we get more Republicans to break rank, we won’t be able to force Bush to pull our kids out of the hell hole. By fall, we’ll have their attention.

    I think the left needs to realize that we are the left, and the center will come along eventually. Look how far we’ve come so far, and realize that we’re getting much closer than ever to sanity.

  • I rang doorbells in 06 for Democratic candidates .. so they could become Republicans?
    Until the party stands strong, I am no longer a blind and loyal Democrat.
    I’m not going to be an accomplice to the war.

  • Well now… Pelosi says she won’t vote for the bill she’s worked so hard to put in front of Bush. Feingold ditto. Both say they’ll revisit the issue in July and September…

    That might have been OK, if it weren’t for the death statistics — at 3 a day (and who knows how many Iraqi), there’s no time to dither and position oneself.

    But I can’t help but wonder how many others sent her really pissed-off notes last night and today 🙂

  • Our time is coming, just savor the smashing victory looming ever closer on the horizon.
    Comment by Curmudgeon

    Until the party stands strong, I am no longer a blind and loyal Democrat.
    Comment by Kali

    Hopefully, we will not look back on this moment as the turning point of losing the next election, including the White House, and giving all the majority back to the Republicans. They will point to this and say to those on the fence, “They can’t govern”.

  • Duck the Fems. In the words of Stephen Colbert, they are dead to me. And I am putting them on notice–I am not giving one red cent this election cycle to the DSCC, the DCCC, the DNC and/or any Dem who foolishly votes for the new bill on Iraq.

    Looks like I can afford that long awaited vacation to Greece this year! Thanks Dems!

  • Tom, we’re always going to have less than we want, and we’re always going to have something to be afraid of losing, whether it’s a house or two of congress, or party discipline, or the White House – and as long as Bush/Republicans can bluff us by threatening to challenge it, we’ll have this weird little mutual non-aggression pact: we agree to pretend we didn’t lose, and they agree to pretend that they didn’t beat the shit out of us.

    That’s not a new dynamic, but I think we can be forgiven for asking, what good did we get by gaining both houses of Congress if we can’t get any better deals as a result?

    Really, do you see *anything* better coming of this negotiation than from 2004? 2005? 2006? when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate? I thought having control meant being able to win a little more often, but apparently *not* when Republicans don’t want you to (and, apparently, when *some* “Democrats” would rather side with their “opponents” than with Dirty Fuckin’ Hippies. Yes, I use quotation marks around both of those words advisedly.).

  • All along, I’ve felt that the only way to end the war without being blamed for it, is to end it with bipartisan cooperation. This is the most disastrous presidency in the history of our nation, and I’m sure Iraq ranks among the most disastrous undertakings in history.

    If the Republicans haven’t already secured their “permanent majority” and our democracy isn’t truly dead, then at the very least, the party is on the ropes and in danger of extinction. With the older generations who falsely associate the post-war “golden age” of the middle-class with white, protestant simplicity, about to die off, their days do seem numbered.

    Again, I am not altogether convinced that our democracy still exists and I’m very nervious going into ’09, but assuming that the rule of law exists and a sufficient number of Americans exist who care, the Republican Party must operate in “damage control” mode. In other words, they can’t expect to win any new hearts and minds, but they can hold on to “the base” by providing a simple talking point for the “post-Iraq” era: the Democrats lost the war just when we were beginning to make progress.

    So it appears to me that, perhaps, the Democrats have been saturating the media and the public conscience with their message: WE OPPOSE THE WAR. The concession is also loud and clear. By November of ’08, when the war has become even more of a disaster, the Republican Party may no longer be viable at all.

    • Comments are closed.