On Iraq: The Time Is Now

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 09:02:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In a very good post, MissLaura discusses Harry Reid's determination to end the war in Iraq, as reported by the NYTimes:

Democratic voters are not the only ones bitter over their party’s failure to use new Congressional power to force a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Senator Harry Reid, the occasionally obstreperous Democratic leader, is upset as well. “We haven’t done enough,” said Mr. Reid, a onetime moderate who has evolved into one of the party’s most fervent critics of the war.
That view captures not only Mr. Reid’s sentiment but also the shifting political dynamic on the war, as public frustration remains high, the conflict dominates the presidential campaign landscape and senior Republicans have chosen to break with President Bush even as the administration has urged patience.
Sensing momentum from the new Republican defections, Mr. Reid and other leading Democrats intend to force a series of votes over the next two weeks on proposals to withdraw troops and limit spending. Democrats are increasingly confident they can assemble majority opposition to administration policies.

There is political gamesmanship in Reid's words here. I do not imagine he expects Republicans to rally to the cause of ending the Debacle, as his comments regarding Pete Domenici made clear, but he must invite them to join Democrats in the drive to end the Debacle.

I have not changed my oft-stated view that the Spending Power, not funding the war after a date certain, is the only way to stop Bush on Iraq. But I understand that Reid must be perceived as seeking bipartisan consensus on the issue for political reasons. But what Reid has also made clear is that he will be demanding a REAL plan to end the Debacle, and that he will not accept fig leafs to give vulebrable Republicans cover.

But it should NEVER be forgotten that the rubber will hit the road on not funding the Debacle in the House of Representatives. That is where the Iraq Debacle can be stopped. That is where the not funding the Debacle after a date certain strategy can work.

Reid's work will help generally, but the Senate, with the likes of Levin, Tester and Webb as the "anti-war" contingent, will never stand up to the President. The House can and just might.

< Wanted: A Pakistan Permission Slip To Attack Al Qaida | "Live Earth" Concert Rocks the World >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On Iraq: The Time Is Now | 41 comments (41 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

We'll see... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 09:22:08 PM EST

Now is the time for these so-called Repub 'defectors' to put up or shut up. Reid is giving them the gift of being able to either vote to end this occupation, or at the very least come up with their own proposals to get us out.

Good for you Harry...so far. Stick to it this time.

Reid is maybe becoming a better poker player? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 09:56:20 PM EST

He has to be ruthless enough to call their bluffs and corner them. If he can show the backbone maybe enough of it will either rub off on Pelosi to help her or scare some guts into her by making her look weaker if she doesn't stand against the duplicitous reps.

They have the power they need. They have to not be afraid to use it.


"I earned some polical capital... (none / 0) (#9)
by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:02:23 PM EST

..now I'm gonna spend it."

See, Bush showed the way, now Reid and Pelosi have to follow it. Right Edger, they need to call the repub 'defectors' bluffs.

No more half-way-maybe-could-be moves!


: He's been the guy behind the counter (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:08:15 PM EST

with the gun, shivering in his boots while handing over money to the robber demanding it, so far.

And the Times Editorial board (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 09:25:32 PM EST

is now demanding that we leave Iraq, for what that's worth.

What I suspect we will see ... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 09:49:34 PM EST

...is a great deal of discussion on the Republican side (and among Democrats like Webb, Tester, and, of course, Salazar) about an updated Iraq Study Group proposal. In other words, withdraw two-thirds of the troops but leave one-third in Iraq. This could turn out to be the bipartisan compromise in September, a lethal compromise. As the rightwing Lt. Col. Ralph Peters noted, the ISG is a prescription for leaving "tens of thousands of hostages in uniform" behind.

Given all the division we've see already, holding the antiwar movement together over the next few months as numerous (lame but alluring) proposals are put forward will be difficult.

The Times has spoken (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 09:54:09 PM EST

everyone out ASAP.


Too bad there isn't a (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:12:41 PM EST

Cronkite at the Times.


Even later than their ... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:14:04 PM EST

...domestic spying piece.


: Hey, we don't have an echo chamber (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:17:22 PM EST

but it's fun to at least pretend.

Well The ISG (1.00 / 2) (#34)
by talex on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:10:56 AM EST

is a start if it can be modified from what is currently being proposed by the moderates sponsoring a 'version' of it. The good news is that Repubs are starting to move to our side as I predicted and have worked for - - and even BEFORE SEPTEMBER!!!

As for leaving troops behind I am afraid that is a given as I have said before. But it may not be that bad. For instance if some are left behind to exclusively root out 'true' foreign fighters (aka Al Queda in the MSM) then those guys probably want to be there anyway. We are talking Green Beret type and Special Forces. Those are guys who want to be in the middle of the action. It is what they signed up for and re-up for. We shouldn't forget that when some are left behind - because they want to be left behind.

And the truth is that our country is damned lucky that there are people like that. Even people like me who do not like war realize that it is sometimes unavoidable and in rare occasions even noble. We couldn't be the country we are with out the type of above named individual.

And BTW for the record - Reid never did give up on ending the war or timelines. He never said that. So what the blogs are attributing to the NYT article is not what the article said at all. The blogs are just continuing to feed the Urban Myth that they created that Reid quit wanting to stop the war. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.
.
.
.
And Armando - you know your date certain will not work as I have already eloquently explained. I can post it again to refresh your memory if you wish.

You'd do better to keep up these type of comments:

but he must invite them to join Democrats in the drive to end the Debacle.

But I understand that Reid must be perceived as seeking bipartisan consensus on the issue for political reasons

Those are a more reasonable and realistic line of thinking. You are making progress.

As for the House passing a bill that can't pass in the Senate - - forget it. It isn't going to happen. Pelosi is not going to waste the time to put on a show only to have to go back to square one in order to craft a bill that can pass in the Senate.

It's going to take several months get to a tipping point. And we should all be glad that some important defectors have chosen to be months out in front of September - and more are sure to join them in the coming few weeks.


Have you read the ISG ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:09:26 AM EST

...recommendations? It's not talking about a few Green Berets. It talks about tens of thousands of troops left behind. So, perhaps the Republicans are moving to YOUR side, but they haven't moved to mine. Worse, so far it's all BS. Lugar, for example, has said he won't vote for a date certain for withdrawal. In other words, it's the same old, same old, slightly embellished.


: Did You Read My Post? (1.00 / 1) (#39)
by talex on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:10:45 AM EST

"The ISG is a start if it can be modified from what is currently being proposed by the moderates sponsoring a 'version' of it.

my question (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by yetimonk on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:02:24 PM EST

is whether Levin speaks for Pelosi. If so, then the House's power-of-the-purse has been taken off the table and this is just theatre.

Good question. (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:09:43 PM EST

Its all been theater so far (none / 0) (#18)
by JK on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:33:19 PM EST

The democrats could have, without a single republican vote or, I believe, any DLC (DINO) democrat votes, put their foot(s) down in January and prevented any appropriations bill until the requirements relative to Iraq were included. These requirements could have and should have included immediate withdrawal simultaneous with the diplomatic rapid recruitment of a non US coalition to include neighboring countries (Kucinich. The redeploy to permanent bases plan (i.e. Vietnam Plan) is just theater. Any timetable plan remains profoundly immoral. Everyday the slaughter of and infliction of unimaginable suffering on the Iraqi civilians continues while Congress strategizes. The Lancet study demonstrated that on average 500-600 civilians have died violently every day since the invasion in March '03 (650,000 as of a year ago this month). The argument of needing to stay to avoid a blood bath is just as big a lie as it was in Vietnam, as it was in Central America in the 1980's and as it was before that during the slaughter of over 800,000 civilians in the Philippines. Enough! The reason withdrawal has not been forced is primarily due to the corporatocracy wing of the Democratic Party (the leadership). JK


: Theater (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:39:30 PM EST

Fear or complicity.

: I think it is (none / 0) (#21)
by yetimonk on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 11:04:05 PM EST

incompetence - Pelosi wasn't ready to be a leader, to wield real power, when she took the job. I could be wrong, but the other possibilities are just as troubling, if not more so, and the down side of being a a leader is that you are held responsible for failures.

Hey Big Guy! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by DawnG on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:53:35 PM EST

I was just thinking about you today. Wanted to say hi and see how you're doing. You still seem in top form. :)

Do you get the impression Reid will bring up more substantial bills or more of the "non binding" "sense of the senate" bills?

Levin, Tester and Webb.... (none / 0) (#3)
by jerry on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 09:45:40 PM EST

Since I don't follow these issues as closely as you, can you explain what you mean by "likes of Levin, Tester and Webb as the "anti-war" contingent,"

Thanks.

Mild sarcasm (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 09:58:25 PM EST

"anti-war" in words but not in deeds.


H.R. 1591 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 11:14:52 PM EST

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes, April 26, 2007

Levin (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea

Prior to that vote in April (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 11:24:44 PM EST

Congress ... provided the Defense Department with $450 billion of emergency funding for this war.
To treat funding for the Iraq war as an unexpected emergency is a perversion of the term. By way of comparison, the Vietnam War required only a single supplemental.
In April of 2003, the President signed the first Iraq supplemental providing $62.6 billion for the Defense Department. This was after the President's budget director told the New York Times that the war would cost between $50 and $60 billion.
Rep. David Obey - last year (Library of Congress - Thomas 2006):

Since 9/11 Congress has provided more than half a trillion dollars for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, nearly 80% of which has been via Emergency Supplementals.


Thanks for the link: (none / 0) (#25)
by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 11:26:14 PM EST

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---51
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)


Yep. (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 11:29:07 PM EST

Got a point?


Still interested in Jerry's question: (none / 0) (#27)
by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 11:33:29 PM EST

"Since I don't follow these issues as closely as you, can you explain what you mean by "likes of Levin, Tester and Webb as the "anti-war" contingent,"
Thanks."

I wouldn't single out Levin, Tester, and Webb merely on the basis of their vote for the most recent supplemental.


Not complicated. (none / 0) (#28)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 11:40:25 PM EST

He asked about Levin, Tester, and Webb.


Got that ... (none / 0) (#29)
by robrecht on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 11:48:59 PM EST

But was there a reason for BTD to single out Levin, Tester, and Webb from among the 48 Democrats who voted in favor of the supplemental? That's part of how I understood Jerry's question.


Examples of say one thing, do another. (none / 0) (#30)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 11:57:18 PM EST

He expected better of them and had higher hopes for them.

This is as far as I go if you start trolling again.


No problem ... (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by robrecht on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:04:28 AM EST

... the question was posed to BTD so one would expect the answer from him. Insults are not appreciated.


Too bad. Don't troll. You won't get them (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:06:17 AM EST

: Edgar ... (1.00 / 2) (#33)
by robrecht on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:08:15 AM EST

Name calling says more about you--most of us learned this in Kindergarten. You need not make a discussion unpleasant.

Mega Force! (none / 0) (#11)
by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:04:00 PM EST

"Deeds Not Words!"

What, you guys don't watch bad movies?


: As often as possible. :-) (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:06:22 PM EST

Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
by rmirman on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:02:03 PM EST

What must be done is to force Bush and the Republicans to admit there is no rationale for remaining. For suggestions as to how see my blog

Click on
--
Science blog
impunv.wordpress.com
or
impunv.blogspot.com

Political blog
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com

: never (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by chemoelectric on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:59:38 AM EST

The mere act of trying to show Bush that there is no rationale for staying would cause Bush to believe that the speaker was a servant of 'Evil'.
In any case, Bush does have a rationale for staying; it's just a stupid rationale: permanent military bases in Iraq, allowing for instance (a PNAC sub-rationale) attacks upon the supply of petroleum to China. The 'Republicans' actually share this rationale, if only out of cowardice against opposing their Leader, until the day they will not oppose the outlawing of permanent military bases in Iraq.
Failure to acknowledge the true rationale renders one powerless against it.

friendly terms with 'Republicans' (none / 0) (#35)
by chemoelectric on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:52:17 AM EST

Reid needs to be on congenial terms with 'Republicans' so he can have them on his side when Bush leaves the troops in Iraq despite de-funding.

WOW (none / 0) (#38)
by Stewieeeee on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:11:55 AM EST

So I was just watching Blog Wars on the Sundance channel and they flashed on the screen a diary title from DailyKos written by some dude called "Big Tent Democrat."

Jon Tester: A New Breed of Democrat.

That's pretty cool... getting your diary in a movie!

knowing your opponent's intent (none / 0) (#40)
by Sumner on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:45:34 AM EST

Have you been watching what Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute is up to?

I'm sure you remember this.

and do see this.

Have you gotten into GWB's head well enough to fathom exactly what he wants, what he is after? Iran?

Is the Time NOW? (none / 0) (#41)
by womanwarrior on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:50:52 PM EST

BTD: Please read the following from Common Dreams and tell us if you think this will happen, and if it is right.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/08/2381/

: You might read this if you haven't already (none / 0) (#42)
by Edger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:02:53 PM EST

BTD: Discussing Impeachment, Sat Jul 07