I put my faith in Reid and Pelosi, so I'm OK with this. OTOH, I'm iffy on withdrawal to begin with, so....
PRESS. YOUR. FUCKING. ADVANTAGE. ARGGGH
Reid and Pelosi don't have the votes. It is a shame.
What advantage? They don't have the votes to force a withdrawal.
6: Neither does the President, and he's at 28% in the polls. Why not keep fighting?
Why not keep fighting?
Battered wife syndrome.
7: The President won't have his blank check if the Democratic leadership in Congress stands up to him, that is.
Maybe there's a cunning plan. But I doubt it. Goddamn.
8: In that case, Pelosi would set the White House on fire, not lay down and let him run over her with his pickup truck.
Neither does the President, and he's at 28% in the polls.
He only needs one. Blame Jemmy Madison if you have to, but that's how it works.
I was burning up over this earlier today, but after thinking about it a bit more, it really isn't surprising. Bush has no reason to compromise based on what we've seen so far.
Congress has made two statements: We will pass an Iraq bill with a timetable; and not passing an Iraq bill is unacceptable. Bush has made one statement: I will not accept an Iraq bill with a timetable.
This is not a stalemate; this is a description of Bush having the upper hand. For it to be a stalemate, Congress would have to refuse to pass a no-strings-attached bill. Then Bush would be forced to compromise. As it stands, he has no reason to.
There's still an outside possibility that Congress will still prove incapable of passing a no-strings-attached bill. But the more I read, the less it sounds likely. (Latest I've heard is that the bill has a rider about the minimum wage -- good way to force liberals to vote for it.)
It's not Pelosi and Reid's fault. Blame the Dems from conservative constituencies and the "moderate" Republicans.
13: He has a veto. That doesn't give him the ability to pass his own legislation. The President has to get majorities in both Houses just like the Democrats do.
He only needs one. Blame Jemmy Madison if you have to, but that's how it works.
Duvall, this is a thread for spittle-flecked, impotent rage. The civics lesson is unappreciated.
12: Crap, I had BWS confused with learned helplessness.
14: This is a clear description of the tactical situation. I'd add this: the Democrats in Congress can afford to back down now, because they'll have more chances to win later. Bush can't lose a single one of these battles, otherwise his war is over. And as time goes on, the Bush/GOP position on Iraq will become less and less tenable. We hope.
18: You can always count on me to keep you straight when it comes to domestic violence issues.
20: Should I stop beating my wife until after she's had the baby?
In hindsight it's mostly surprising that they went out on this much of a limb when they had no plan other than "hope Bush compromises." But I was with the people shrieking that they had to go out on a limb, so it's not that surprising.
My bad. I saw the title "Stupid Bastards" and thought this post would be about us funding pro-terror television programs because none of the people we put in charge of the Iraqi TV stations knew Arabic. The title could be used for so many stories these days...
21: Neighbor, please. She could totally kick your ass, pregant or no.
And as time goes on, the Bush/GOP position on Iraq will become less and less tenable.
How much more untenable does it have to become?
26: Until it translates into veto-proof Congressional support for withdrawal, or until Bush declares "victory" in Iraq and pulls the troops out.
Otherwise, we're all just moving air.
So just don't fund the troops. Nobody ever said stopping the war is easy or costless. As the bullets run out, Bush would go to impoundment or diversion, which may or may not look bad for Congress outside the Beltway, but would be a declaration of war inside the Beltway.
But Pelosi & Reid not only do not have votes for a timetable bill, they are not capable of sending no special appropriations bill at all. They just don't have the votes, and without extraordinary measures, I don't think Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority in my lifetime.
I suppose very few remember, I certainly don't, just how ugly it got after the 1970 Congress was elected. And that was with a relatively moderate Republican Party and a very liberal Democratic caucus, at least the part that wasn't Dixiecrat.
It really does have to get say ten times as ugly as it is now. Radical political change doesn't happen in America without at least a little street violence as a symptom and expression of passion.
All they need is 41 solid votes to send no supplementary appropriations bill at all, right? It's not going to happen, but it's not because we don't have 41 Senators who wouldn't be putting themselves at risk by forcing a withdrawal.
You know, I really thought that the 2006 election was a clear and unambiguous message: "The American people are fucking sick of the Iraq war, get us the hell out, now."
But, somehow, the message that congressional Democrats seem to have heard was, "Please give us universal healthcare, as long as we can keep dying in Iraq, of course, because we really like that."
I'm honestly pretty confused about the issues they think are winners and losers.
29: The Feingold-Reid amendment got 29 votes. Neither Webb nor Tester voted for it. Can you find 12 more "Yea" votes in there?
Were they really twisting arms for votes on that, though? I just don't believe the people who didn't vote for the amendment would have paid a political price for it.
Look, I am not sure if military withdrawal from the ME is possible or even a good idea. I don't know what America will look like at the End of Empire. But for those that do want to demilitarize, and get Universal Health Care or buck the DLC...in other words, change the system and establishment, it is gonna have to look like the sixties again.
Or the violence of the first wave 1880-1920 (Debs & Goldman go to jail), or the Veterans shot on the Mall that helped elect FDR, or the Dearborn Riots of the 30s, or the McCarthy era, or the abortion-clinic bombings, or the Clinton impeachment.
Politics is beanball, high & inside. Politics is violence by other means. When it is unbearable, not when you feel like screaming but are actually screaming and half your friends run away, it means you are getting stuff done.
And I don't think anyone would be inclined to incite the greatest constitutional crisis in history if they weren't even willing to cast a nominal vote in support of ending the war.
People will take the idea of representative vs. direct democracy to quite amazing lengths, and Democrats are as bad as Republicans. Bush's unitary President just takes the representative idea one step further: right now, Bush claims to be The Sole American People, and Congress also claims to be Half of the American People, whereas we are not The American People at all.
If nothing else, why aren't they out there saying that they caved because the President is willing to play chicken with American troops' lives and they're not?
There is an option: zero-fund the Iraq War Bill, and fund a Bring the Boys Home Safe Bill of exactly the same size. If bill doesn't sign he doesn't want the boys home safe.
And girls.
the Democrats in Congress can afford to back down now, because they'll have more chances to win later
Aside from the dubiousness of this logic -- "we have backed down against the Wehrmacht now, to have more chances to win later!" -- I kinda agree with it.
Reid and Pelosi have, presumably, one thing before their eyes at all times: 2008.
Perhaps they've made a calculation about when they can afford to dig in? Or are they just fluffing it, like Dems do?
I think that even with a cave now, the ball has been moved downfield. Advantage #1: The new supplemental will, if Pelosi has any sense at all, require the support of every single Republican to pass. So that's every federally elected Republican foot, tied anew to Bush's anchor even at this late date. Advantage #2: If the bill barely passes even with the support of every Republican, Bush's standing will be significantly weakened. Far from a blank check, what he will get is a notice that the dissent of a tiny segment of the Republican caucus would make this thing go the other way next time. It's possible that for the first time since late 2004, Bush will be accountable to someone other than himself for his war policy, and that's something, at least.
I'm glad to see a lot of sense here after the first few comments; my biggest frustration is the same as 36.
The Senate Dems are only the majority party because of one pro-war asshole. What could they possibly accomplish under that circumstance? I'm proud that they've passed the bills they have, and held the line as long as they have. Winning this round was never in the cards - not without the outside-the-Beltway changes suggested by bob.
Look, people, casting a vote last November wasn't enough. That may have changed the status quo, but it didn't change the system. Until every R outside of the South - and half the ones inside - fears his job unless he votes against Bush, Dems can't win this fight. So yeah, think general strike. Think Downtown Kiev, November 2004. 28% is just a number until 72% of Americans start doing something about it.
I would note that part of the reason that this is true is that, until our side shows itself in force, the media will continue to do things like fire Gen. Batiste - and see no backlash. And in that media environment, Dems would be insane to simply defund the war. You'd have Katie Couric openly editorializing against the Dems, with no fear. And that 72% would vaporize, because if there's one thing the last 6 years have taught us, it's that Americans can be cowed by propoganda.
This really isn't about strategy, though. It's really about what we can hope for. The Congressional Republicans (+ Lieberman) will almost all stonewall, the Blue Dogs will cave immediately, the secret hawks will be cagy, and Bush will go full speed ahead until he leaves office.
You really can't treat a war like artichoke price supports, with clever long-term strategies. Enormous decisions are being made, and the Democratic input is essentially nil. By and large the populace wants the war over with, but only about 1/4 of Congress cares.
Will 2008 change anything? Who knows?
The Senate Dems are only the majority party because of one pro-war asshole.
Worse -- more than one pro-war asshole.
If I were inclined to conspiracy theories, I would suggest that the congressional Democrats were deliberately allowing the war to continue on the theory that as long as the war continues, the Republicans will be ludicrously unpopular, which means that the Democrats can push their domestic agenda and not have to worry about backlash, because who are you gonna vote for? A Republican? Not likely.
But, that's probably just me projecting -- I don't like the Democratic domestic agenda, but it's not like I'm gonna vote Republican over it.
I don't get the objections about the Power of Lieberman. Yeah, so he might cross the aisle and switch sides to vote for the war with the Republicans on any kind of Senate funding issue. So the fuck what? First of all, at least the story will be "Asshole Republicans And Lieberman Vote Against Bringing The Troops Home," and not "Democrats Bend Over For Bush." Secondly, the Democrats have the House. It's not like Lieberman + Senate Republicans can actually get legislation passed through all of Congress. Why not force them to put their hawk votes on the record, instead of pre-emptively flinching away?
7: Neither does the President, and he's at 28% in the polls. Why not keep fighting?
I read somewhere that Congress's approval rating is even lower than Bush's. It isn't the case that just because Americans don't approve of the job Bush is doing, they therefore approve of the job Pelosi & co are doing.
46: I think you're right that Congress has a lower rating, but wrong about the implied reason. My recollection is that the drop comes from people on the Dem side who think Dems should be doing more to sort out Iraq. Basically, the people on this thread, for the most part. I wouldn't swear to it, though.
A Google search for "congress approval rating" seems to suggest that the polling consensus is 30% +/- 5% for Congress. So pretty dismal, but certainly not dramatically worse than Bush's.
47: Sorry, that was supposed to be 35% +/- 5%.
Here are some references to atone for my typo:
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/congress_ja.html
Congressional approval ratings are right where they were all during the last Congress, when the GOP was in charge. Congress always polls badly, no matter who's in charge.
Why wouldn't Congress's approval rate be lower than Bush's? The few who approve of Bush don't approve of Congress because they're trying to end the war. The majority who don't approve of Bush don't approve of Congress because they haven't succeeded in ending the war, or solving the problem of Bush generally.
Why must my party be such a bunch of pussies. Even if they can't override it, at least send it back for a couple more vetos or something. Get several nay votes on record for vulnerable Repubs so we can hang those votes around their neck next election.
51: I want to agree, but we already got those votes.
Americans aren't what you'd call a subtle people though. I think it's worth getting a few more vetos in the news to make those vulnerable Repubs sweat a bit as they envision the "so and so stood with Bush as he vetoed a bill to end the war 4 TIMES." ads that the Dems will run in their districts.
Get several nay votes on record for vulnerable Repubs so we can hang those votes around their neck next election.
The authorization is only through September - at that pace that's four more chances before the 2008 election.
Well yeah, but I'd like to see the Dems get in the habit when to take the advice in #2.
And this is all aside from my feeling that "hey fuckers, lots of people are getting killed, so how about we resist a tad more, okay?"
"in the habit of taking"
I really need to quit paying attention to petty distractions like work and put more effort into my blog commenting.
The problem here isn't that the Dems are stupid. However stupid they may or may not be, they are acutely sensitive to potential lines of political attack. They realize that Bush has no incentive to cave: he isn't running for anything anymore. However, if they go to the mats on this, they (esp. the freshmen) will be vulnerable to ads in 08 along the lines of "Rep. X refused to help our troops when they were fighting for our freedom", etc.. Now, of course this is bullshit, but they figure it will be effective bullshit, and I agree with them. The problem isn't that the dems are stupid; the problem is that people are stupid and we live in a democracy.
they (esp. the freshmen) will be vulnerable to ads in 08 along the lines of "Rep. X refused to help our troops when they were fighting for our freedom", etc..
I don't see this at all. Look at the first several polls, and keep in mind these are from the Fox news demographic. It doesn't seem to me we're very vulnerable on this, and even less likely to be vulnerable on it a year from now.
58:
The issue is not voters' actual preferences, but rather the narrative that can be constructed. Even if the median voter opposes the war, he can be expected to "support the troops" If one side can define "supporting the troops" as giving them more weapons, and the other as letting them come back home, there can only be one winner.
I think we get played on these narratives though because we don't fight back.
Also, what the Editors said.
And while I'm linking to the Editors, a big shout out to this one as well.
It feels pretty horrible to believe it's necessary to play a political game while lives are at stake, but there's really no alternative. There has actually been some noticeable forward motion; it's really important not to give in & accept the War Party's spin. Trent Lott, for example, was uncorking his rich Senatorial baritone today to explain how of course, everybody agrees that funding should be tied to benchmarks for Iraqi political progress. The President has been saying that for a long time, he purrs. Well that's bullshit; the War Party's intention is to make a defeat look like a win.
Democrats, Republicans who face 2008 elections, and the MSM are all now looking to September. There are all kinds of little reasons for this, like preventing after-the-fact claims that St. Petraeus could have "won" if we'd just given him a chance, and two really big reasons: (1) even though the Administration pretends not to want it, there may be some political leverage with the Iraqi government to be won from playing Good Cop to Congress's Bad Cop; and (2) it's about to be summer, when typically the majority of America pays as little attention as possible to news generally and political news especially.
What I'm hoping for is that Reid & Pelosi will be smart enough to start scheduling hearings and debates for September as quickly as possible. This spring has been a rolling clusterfuck, with nobody ever sure when the decision would actually be made--but now the battle lines are being drawn. Citizens who care about ending the catastrophic adventure in Iraq need to prepare for something more than blog-reading & bitching. I know how dispiriting it was in 2002 and 2003 to be yelling in the streets and getting completely ignored, but those days are over.
In short: we didn't elect all these Democrats to lead each other. We elected them to lead us. There's no excuse not to be ready; we've got three months. See you at the barricades!
I think we get played on these narratives though because we don't fight back.
I don't think it's that Democrats get played because they don't fight back, but they get played because all they do is fight back. While it may be critical for at least someone in the organization to keep political gains in mind when making decisions, it does a politician no good at all to be seen as someone who merely flaps in the breeze.
See you at the barricades!
I'll believe it when I see it.
63:
I don't think our positions are very far apart. I think I see what you're saying, and I agree, but I'm not sure I'd call what the Democrats have been doing "fighting back".
I'm extremely pessimistic, as per usual. Domestically the Bush administration has tried to pull off what's pretty close to a coup d'etat, by pushing the unitary presidency in various legal and extra-legal ways. Internationally they've dragged us into something we may never be able to get out of, and there are reports that their present plan ("Plan B") consists of pushing further still into Iran. If the Iran card is put on the table the Democrats will have to start all over from scratch; the Iraq withdrawal will be moot.
As I've said, you really can't play this the way you play tax policy or artichoke subsidies. The Democrats are using normal politics to oppose revolutionary politics, and that doesn't work.
"If the Iran card is put on the table the Democrats will have to start all over from scratch; the Iraq withdrawal will be moot."
Not necessarily;my eternal optimism leads me to remember Brest-Litovsk.
Hooray for bob! I thought he was dead, or in exile or something.
Keith Olbermann just the called the Democratic Party a bunch of pussies.
69: Hey, you go to Congress with the Democrats you've got.
The votes for the Iraq funding were 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate so clearly the Democrats have nowhere near enough votes to end the war.