Mobile version

Defunding

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Defund by: andgarden Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 17:42:25 PST If you have somehow gotten the impression that I'd be giving up on defunding, you've obviously been reading the wrong newspaper. Today I suggest you take a look at the  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's editorial page: What the Congress must do now, if Mr. Bush continues to refuse the $50 billion with conditions, is simply to *pass no bill*, leaving the Pentagon to finance its activities with the $482 billion it has already been authorized. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and the contractors behind the scenes will undoubtedly squawk, and the Republicans will posture politically, but the Democrats in the Congress, whom the electorate has counted on since November 2006 to bring the war to an end, will just have to take the heat. [Emphasis mine] More. There's More... :: (4 Comments, 285 words in story)

Sen Webb: Congress Will Fund The Debacle In Iraq by: Armando Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:32:08 PST I am watching Senator Webb's appearance on Meet the Press this morning and in response to Tim Russert's playing President George Bush's statement that Congress capitulate to his demand that the Iraq Debacle be funded without conditions, Senator Webb basically said that Congress will provide funds for Bush Iraq Debacle. Senator Webb talks a good game, but as he has done all year, the bottom line is he will vote cede Congress' Constitutional Spending Power. He will not vote to stand up to Bush. In the next breath he is real strong on nonbinding resolutions about Iran. When asked by Russert about Joe Biden's call to impeach Bush if he attacks Iran, Webb hems and haws and says that the SPENDING POWER is the way to stop Bush from attacking Iran. Excuse me Senator Webb, IF Bush does attack Iran, basedon your statements on Iraq funding, I would expect that you will vote for funding there too. Senator Webb is a real mess on these issues. Discuss :: (85 Comments)

On Iraq: Create Contrast By Standing Up To Bush by: Armando Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 14:47:44 PST Matt Yglesias writes: Dana Goldstein remarks after watching the Republicans debate that they "are terrified of the words 'George W. Bush.' A smart Democrat would force her or his Republican opponent to face up, as often as possible, to the legacy of his party's leader." . . .  I think Democrats need to worry about a possible Republican blurring strategy on Iraq especially if the Democratic nominee voted for the war. . . Just so. What always is missing from Yglesias' analysis on this is what the current Congress can do - stand up to Bush on funding the Iraq Debacle: President Bush sternly pressed Democrats to approve money to fund the Iraq war "without strings and without delay" before leaving town for the Christmas holidays, something congressional leaders have already indicated they will not do. I liked Harry Reid's response: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., responded that Democrats will get troops the money they need as part of a "war strategy worthy of their sacrifices." "Bush Republicans have indefinitely committed our military to a civil war that has taken a tremendous toll on our troops and our ability to respond to other very real threats around the world," Reid said. Now the hard part, just saying no. That is what Democrats need to do. It is good policy. It is good politics. Discuss :: (28 Comments)

The Missed Opportunity by: Armando Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 14:05:39 PST Some may not believe this, but I have been bending over backwards trying to become a solid supporter of Barack Obama. I really do believe he has a bundle of political talent and generally holds sound views on most issues. But as I have written since 2006, he has simply failed to be the type of Democratic politician we need in this political climate (See my many posts on Obama for more detail.) Recognizing this problem, Matt Yglesias defends Obama: I also think I should take my hat off to Hillary Clinton's campaign -- I think this has been less a failure on Obama's part, then cleverness on Clinton's. She's managed to position herself on foreign policy issues in a way that signals her differences with Obama very clearly to the tiny community of specialists while completely blurring them to the broader audience of voters. I'm not sure how this can be overcome . . I am sure how it can be done and should have been done for the past year at least - by leading on the issues NOW. As Markos writes: I don't know how many times I've written this, and maybe I'm just wasting my time, but rather than talk about leadership, Obama and Clinton could actually shows us what that leadership looks like by fighting to prevent the Senate from capitulating on Iraq. Honestly, Yglesias, like too many Left wonks, has been oblivious to what Congress can do on Iraq. It is a terrible blind spot. For them, if it is not in a position paper, Foreign Affairs article or "big speech," it as if it does not exist. Look at his lament: I'm not sure how this can be overcome, but I'm sure it can't be overcome by having writers further obscure the differences by focusing primarily on what a good job Clinton's done of obscuring them. The basic reality is that each and every time the candidates stake out a position on something, Clinton takes a less-liberal line. Then each and every time Obama starts getting traction with the argument that Clinton is too hawkish, she backtracks and makes the argument that there's no real difference here. And it's true that if you look at any one thing with a microscope, the "no difference" argument can be made to stick. But it's the pattern that matters . . . This is, in a word, absurd. There are no substantive differences on what to do NOW, despite attempts by Yglesias and others to pretend there are, among the Big 3. The only candidate who has made real differences on these big issues has been Chris Dodd - by leading NOW. Unfortunately, Dodd just seems unable to get any traction. Partly because writers like Matt Yglesias pay no attention to what the Congress can do on Iraq. Maybe they would if OBAMA leads in the Senate NOW. Discuss :: (75 Comments)

Ending The Iraq Debacle Is Up To the House by: Armando Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:48:26 PST I have long said this. Today, I am proven right: Senate Democrats appear ready to omit Iraq withdrawal timelines from a supplemental spending bill in hopes of clearing in December funds for the troops — but House leaders have no intentions of following suit. Good for Speaker Pelosi and good for House Democrats. Now who do we have to worry about? The eternal capitulation leaders, Hoyer and Rahmbo. Watch out for them. Discuss :: (12 Comments)

The Good Word From the Great Orange Satan by: Armando Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 19:57:59 PST So I read this in Newsweek: As much as Republicans and the media like to talk about the 60-vote threshold for any anti-war legislation, the fact is that if no legislation gets passed, there's no money for war. A tough and principled Democratic caucus could force compromise on this legislation and, if none were forthcoming from the GOP, then see the war defunded by default. Either way, the public would cheer. Looking for a angle to hate on the Great Orange Satan, I have come up with . . . plagiarism. There's More... :: (53 Comments, 9 words in story)

What Matters In the Iraq Funding Bill by: Armando Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 16:14:00 PST I have not blogged on the passage in the House of an Iraq funding bill for one simple reason - the passage of the bill is irrelevant. The Senate won't pass it and if it does, the President will veto it. What passes is not what matters. What does NOT pass is what matters. NO FUNDING without timlines, without a date certain for ending the Debacle. I am sort of frustrated that this simple point, made by me for quite a while now does not seem to sink in. But one more time for posterity: I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain. Discuss :: (33 Comments)

223 House Democrats Vote Against "Clean" Funding by: andgarden Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 19:51:34 PST As Kagro X often explains, there is a split between those who believe that motions to recommit are purely procedural and those who believe that they carry all of the meaning of a proper amendment. In this Congress, they have mostly been given the latter meaning. In that context, the vote on the motion to recommit on tonight's Iraq supplemental funding appropriation seems especially important to me. 223 Democrats voted no on that motion, which would have given the President $50B, no questions asked. They were joined by 8 Republicans. To me it seems obvious that the Presidednt could be in dangerous territory: the House could actually have the votes to defeat ANY clean funding bill. We might, against all odds and predictions, actually be able to end the war during this Congress.   There's More... :: (8 Comments, 228 words in story)

Who Woulda Thunk It? by: Armando Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:04:07 PST Here is a shocker: Matzzie to Head Democratic Soft Money Effort Even as the Democratic primary fight enters the final stretch, plans are proceeding apace among party strategists to build an independent money machine that will rival or eclipse what they created in 2004, when donors poured millions into two key outside-the-party organizations -- America Coming Together and the Media Fund. Tom Matzzie has been hired to run a new effort for 2008, which he has described in an e-mail as a $100 million-plus venture organized around "issues and character." Matzzie is leaving his post as the Washington director of Moveon.org to take the job. . . . The news of Matzzie's hiring comes roughly two weeks after a group of the largest donors in the Democratic party gathered in Washington to discuss where they'll put their money during the 2008 race. . . . Those familiar with overall Democratic fundraising plans for 2008 say that everything is still in a very nascent stage, but party heavyweights are clearly on the march -- setting up various organizations that may be integrated into a larger uber-fundraising effort, perhaps under Mattzie's group. Move On's political director who wasjoined at the hip with the Democratic Party on Congressional issues now getting a big Dem fundraising gig? Shocking. Move On and Mattzie have played its members for a while now. You think they'll figure it out? Me neither. Discuss :: (12 Comments)

House Dems Propose Iraq Funding With Timetables by: Armando Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 15:23:47 PST Speaker Pelosi today announced: House Democrats said Thursday they would send President Bush $50 billion for combat operations on the condition that he begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. The proposal, similar to one Bush vetoed earlier this year, would identify a goal of ending combat entirely by December 2008. It would require that troops spend as much time at home as they do in combat, as well as effectively ban harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding. In a private caucus meeting, Pelosi told rank-and-file Democrats that the bill was their best shot at challenging Bush on the war. And if Bush rejected it, she said, she did not intend on sending him another war spending bill for the rest of the year. "This is not a blank check for the president," she said later at a Capitol Hill news conference. "This is providing funding for the troops limited to a particular purpose, for a short time frame. As always, we know Bush will veto. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush would veto any bill that sets an "artificial timeline" for troop withdrawals. As always, I applaud the Speaker's STATED stance today. As always, the important point here is that the House Dems MUST stick to their guns and tell the President - of he vetoes then he is abandoning the troops in the field. I repeat, the President of the United States will be ABANDONING AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE FIELD! President Bush is proposing to stab the troops in the back by vetoing funding for them. A disgraceful man. The worst President in history. Discuss :: (22 Comments)

On Iraq Funding: A Moment for Obama by: Armando Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:42:24 PST Senator Barack Obama has run a campaign criticizing what he calls the Politics of the Moment all the while campaigning for his moments. Well, if this is true, an Obama Moment can emerge: Despite their rhetoric about not wanting to hand President Bush another "blank check" for the Iraq War, Democrats appear poised to give him exactly that -- enough cash to keep the war going full steam for as long as six months, no strings attached. . . .Democrats are quietly preparing to give the president enough spending flexibility to keep the war going anyway. . . . Democrats began approving billions in extra funding, starting with the first stopgap spending resolution [I have no idea what Roll Call is talking about here. I kow of no additional funding measrues that have been passed since the Iraq Supplelemental that was passed prior to Petraeus's testimony. Frankly, I think Roll Call is wrong.] Next up will be the regular Defense spending bill, expected to go to conference committee Tuesday. Although the bill is not expected to include funding specifically targeted to Iraq, Democrats plan to allow much of the funding to be diverted from regular Defense accounts to the war. . . . (Emphasis supplied.) The House can not pass such funding without the Senate. Senator Obama, just say no. Put a hold on such a bill. Lead a filibuster against it. This is your moment. Prove you are more than just pretty words. Discuss :: (21 Comments)

What We Need: A Do Nothing Congress by: Armando Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:49:45 PDT Brian Beutler has a terrific run down of what went wrong tactically with the Democratic Congress last week (S-CHIP, FISA, etc.) But Beutler still is looking at the tactical picture and looking at a Congress that he wants to do something. The problem is that, and this is true, they do not have the votes to do something in contested areas like S-CHIP, Iraq funding and FISA. This mistaken focus is exemplified here: There is no hypothetical package of enticements the Democrats can offer a Republican that outweigh the price that that Republican will pay within his own party. He'll only be treated leniently when his party bosses realize that, if they don't let him vote with the opposition, he might lose his seat. At some point the Republicans realized something crucial: That, for now anyhow, upholding the veto is politically neutral. . . . What does this mean? It means that even on issues as politically popular as S-CHIP, Bush can stop all Democratic initiatives. The question is then what can the Democrats do? Simply this, END all the Bush travesties. Iraq, FISA, etc. By using the power of the purse and NOT funding them. More. There's More... :: (16 Comments, 449 words in story)

The Democrats Political Gambit by: wolverine06 Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 16:31:54 PDT I started to write a comment in response to Armando's excellent essay asking the question (and I'm paraphrasing), Why are the Democrats given a pass in the media about Congress's ability to end the Iraq war by doing nothing? But as I continued to write, I decided it was probably more appropriate to be a seperate essay (my first here at Docudharma) rather than a comment, because it was this very issue back in February of this year that led me to my opinions and conclusions about what the Democrats were planning to do. So with that in mind, my response continues below. There's More... :: (33 Comments, 816 words in story)

Missing From The Iraq Coverage by: Armando Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:06:29 PDT is the reality that Democrats can end the Debacle by not funding it. The power of doing nothing is lost on them. Instead, we see the Republican Party responding to its base (h/t Josh Marshall): Despite months of pressure, no more than eight Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have backed any measure that mandates a troop withdrawal. And GOP strategists predict that is unlikely to change. "Republicans have to be cognizant of where their base is," said pollster Bob Wickers, whose company has worked with Republican candidates in a dozen states in recent years. Here's my question, why don't Democrats have to be cognizant of where THE COUNTRY is? Josh's post is really missing this point - that Democrats won in 2006 on Iraq. That THEIR base and the country want out of Iraq. And that they have the power to stop the war. By doing nothing. It is the central insight and is missing from much of the Iraq coverage, Media and blogs alike. Discuss :: (28 Comments)

Will Pelosi Stand Up On Iraq? Let's Act As If She Will by: Armando Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 17:05:06 PDT Buhdy e-mails me about this: Pelosi made three specific promises on the question of funding the war and on the Congressional battle over FISA: 1) that the House will not take up a war appropriations bill this year 2) that there will be no war appropriations bill next year that doesn't include a fixed date for bringing the troops home 3) that House Democrats will put up a major fight over the Bush administration's desire to make permanent the FISA law passed in August, particularly over the issue of retroactive immunity that the Senate has already given in on. and asks: Parsing? or Progress? Here's my take - let's act as if it is a real promise from Nancy Pelosi. Let's praise and cheer her for standing up. Let's tell her we have her back on this. Why? Because it has a better chance of becoming true if we react to it in that way. And that is all that matters. Discuss :: (93 Comments)

The Clueless Nancy Pelosi by: Armando Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 17:37:45 PDT Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told George Stepanapoulos today: I am one of the most vociferous opponents of the [Iraq] War . . . Excuse me Madame Speaker, but are you fucking kidding me? Nearly 90 House members have signed this letter: The Honorable George W. Bush President United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office. Now you are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment as stipulated above. More than 3,742 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 27,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues. We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come. Sincerely, Co-signers: Murphy (CT), Jackson, Brown (FL), Thompson (MS), Watt, Meeks, Loebsack, Weiner, Kucinich, DeFazio, Farr, Waxman, Thompson (CA), Lee, Woolsey, Waters, Watson, Frank, Conyers, Filner, Rush, Towns, Clay, Wynn, Delahunt, Holmes-Norton, Butterfield, Solis, Maloney, Nadler, Honda, Cohen, Hare, Napolitano, Hastings, McGovern, Kaptur, Schakowsky, Carson, Linda Sanchez, Grijalva, Olver, Jackson-Lee, McDermott, Markey, Fattah, Pallone, Hinojosa, Stark, Scott (VA), Moran, McCollum, Oberstar, DeGette, Tauscher, Holt, Hinchey, Pastor, Davis (IL), Hall, Velazquez, Rangel, Hodes, Blumenauer, Lynch, Artur Davis, Johnson (GA), Payne, Cleaver, Lewis, Clarke, Abercrombie, Moore(WI), Ellison, Baldwin, Christensen, Scott (GA), Paul, Gutierrez, Welch, Capps, Rothman, Cummings, Tierney, Doggett, Eshoo, and Tubbs-Jones. The name Pelosi is not among the signatories. When Pelosi signs that letter; when she promises that she will not put forward any bills to fund Iraq without a date certain to end the Iraq Debacle, then she can claim to be "one of the most vocieferous opponents of the Iraq War." She is not one of the most vociferous opponents of the Iraq war. She needs to do everything she can to end it and then she can truthfully claim to be such. Until then, Pelosi is simply not telling the truth. Discuss :: (88 Comments)

Heroes? by: Armando Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:27:34 PDT When Nancy Pelosi says: "We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow," Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders." It captures virtually no attention from the Left blogs. Instead we get this: "Name one hero. Just one." A woman in the audience raised her hand and said "Eli Pariser." Then everybody clapped. MoveOn is an incredibly valuable asset on the progressive side and it's no surprise that entrenched Democrats who see them as a threat took an opportunity to take a swipe at them. . . . MoveOn stuck their necks out. And I believe it worked. People talk about it as if it was a "distraction." From what? From ending the war? As if. I hope they continue to find meaningful ways to combat the horrible trajectory this country seems to be on by continuing to fight for progressive values. Stuck their necks out? A threat to entrenched Democrats? Puhleeeaze. They probably raised more money than they have all year. They support these entrenched Democrats. It begins to smell like a racket to me. This was Move On when it mattered: MoveOn's Washington director, Tom Matzzie just confirmed to me that despite earlier concerns that the House Dem leadership's Iraq plan wasn't tough enough, the organization yesterday started polling its members and has decided to back the legislation . . .  "Our view is, this is a choice between Republicans who want endless war and Democrats who want a safe, responsible end to the war." Democrats like Nancy Pelosi who will not do what needs to be done to end the Debacle? You think Move On will run an ad on Pelosi? It smells like a racket to me. Who will speak for the "irresponsible ones" who want Congress to do what it must to end the war - not fund it after a date certain? Not Move On. Not the Left blogs. Not the Left pundits. Where are the "heroes?" Who is defending and supporting the Progressive Caucus? Those folks are the heroes. Not Move On. Not the Left blogs. Discuss :: (16 Comments)

Poll: 70% Support Fully Funded Withdrawal or NOTHING by: andgarden Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 13:33:04 PDT News From Rep. Barbara Lee: Asked what Congress should do with President Bush's pending Iraq supplemental request, the poll found that 70 percent of respondents want Congress to either vote against the President's request or require that funds can only be used for my plan to protect troops and bring them home. And by a two to one margin, respondents favored requiring that funds be spent on redeployment instead of providing the administration funds without conditions She asks us to contact our representatives and support this plan. That is my intention, and I hope you'll join me. Discuss :: (19 Comments)

Follow The Leader by: Armando Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 13:18:10 PDT Amazing: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in a determinedly good mood when she sat down to lunch with reporters yesterday. . . . But her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic "base" over her failure to end the war in Iraq. "Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk." Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment." Though opposed to the war herself, Pelosi has for months been a target of an antiwar movement that believes she hasn't done enough. Cindy Sheehan has announced a symbolic challenge to Pelosi in California's 8th Congressional District. And the speaker is seething. "We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow," Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders." She hates us. She really hates us. But by all means, let's coddle the Dem leaders in Congress. I'm sure she'll lead us somewhere. Suuuure she will. Discuss :: (44 Comments)

On Iraq: Coddling The Congress, Criticizing Clinton by: Armando Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 06:03:13 PDT (Bumped - promoted by ek hornbeck) The problem with liberal pundits is that they are capable of being overtaken by herd mentalities just like their conservative colleagues. On Iraq, the majority of liberal pundits have bought into the the patently false notion that the Congress has done "everything it can" to end the war while at the same time deciding Hillary Clinton is not pure on Iraq, notwithstanding the facts. Take Harold Meyerson for instance: . . . Congressional Democrats have honorably tried and failed to scale back the war; the Senate's requirement of a 60-vote supermajority to alter policy requires supermajority support from the public for an altered Senate. This is simply false. Meyerson can not be ignorant of the fact that no bill need be passed to end the war. That in fact, FUNDING the war requires passage of a bill and not funding does not. Meyerson gives the Congress a free pass while taking shots at Hillary Clinton: There's More... :: (53 Comments, 137 words in story)

Next >>