Iraq: Democrats Moving in the Right Direction

by Matt Stoller, Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:59:28 PM EDT

The Democratic Party is not the peace movement, it is a political party. And when I blogged this piece today, Tom Hayden's point that "at least the Pelosi measure is tying the Democratic banner to the notion of a withdrawal timeline" is important. Here's good news from the House:

The House Appropriations Committee Thursday approved, largely along party lines, the Iraq supplemental spending bill.
Democrats prevailed with their plan of attaching a withdrawal timetable for U.S. troops to the measure, which passed 36-28.
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) was the sole Democrat voting against the bill, but she agreed not to offer a fast-withdrawal amendment, which Democratic leaders considered troubling, to the underlying bill.
"I don't think the president deserves another chance," Lee said.

And there's good news from the Senate. The Reid resolution on withdrawal lost 48-50. Lieberman, Pryor, and Ben Nelson voted no, Gordon Smith voted yes. That means that we had three only defections - over 95% of the Democratic Senate caucus voted for a timeline, which is a far cry from the 22 who voted against the war in 2002. And the Republicans stayed steady at one defection (Chafee voted against the war in 2002).

As the Progressive States campaign to pass state resolutions continues, this is putting crushing pressure on the Republicans at all levels. If Republicans get enough pressure, Bush will have to fold. If not, even red state Senate like Cornyn and McConnell can be voted out of office.

2006 was a mandate to restrict Bush and end the war, and Democrats listened. It's tragic, more than tragic, that the Republicans are going to keep the war going, and it's our job to get the public to understand that this war can end, and that getting Republicans out of office is the way to end it. Only in doing so can we move the Republicans to either end the war or end their careers.

UPDDATE: Arcuri, one of the members on the list of possible Blue Dog saboteurs, is supporting the supplemental. And here's Sestak:

"Although I am disappointed there is not one fixed date certain by the end of the year to redeploy out of Iraq, as my legislation proposes, in order to permit a change in strategy to where the Iraqis as well as Iranians and Syrians have an incentive to work for stablity, I am pleased we are moving in the right direction for an end date to this War, so we can enhance our security around the world."

He sounds more liberal than Blue Dog here, but he's still equivocating. Here's the list, updated:

~~Michael Arcuri (NY-24)~~
John Barrow (GA-12)
Melissa Bean (IL-08)
Dan Boren (OK-02)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Bud Cramer (AL-02)
Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Bob Ethridge (NC-02)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20) ???
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
John Salazar (CO-03)
Joe Sestak (PA-07)
Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Gene Taylor (MS-04)

Today's big win in the Appropriations Committee is good for momentum. Win or lose, Pelosi is an amazing Speaker.

Tags: George Bush, Gordon Smith, Harry Reid, Iraq, Nancy Pelosi, Republicans, S J Res 9 (all tags)

Comments

29 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Iraq: Democrats Moving in the Right Direction

Yeah but Lou Dobbs just told me that the Senate Dems suffered a major setback today.

by Karatist Preacher 2007-03-15 02:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Iraq: Democrats Moving in the Right Direction

Stupid fucking Joe Lieberman. I can't believe this wanker has another 5+ years in the Senate, at least.

by PsiFighter37 2007-03-15 02:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Iraq: Democrats Moving in the Right Direction

I'm glad you think Bush will fold... I don't. At this point, I don't think he gives two shits about the GOP... he will screw them over to continue his little oil war. However, we might be able to get enough to override vetos and then go after him when he refuses.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-15 02:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Iraq: Democrats Moving in the Right Direction

So, please help me understand all of this. This is what is happening with the supplemental as far as I can tell, please correct me where I'm wrong:

The new timetable legislation is not a bill by itself, but an amendment to the new Iraq funding bill.
Because the amendment is being added in committee, neither the House nor the Senate will get a specific opportunity to vote on the amendment alone.
The only way for any member of the House or Senate to vote against the timetable amendment is to vote against the entire Iraq funding bill.
Similarly, Bush can't veto the bill without vetoing his own Iraq funding request.

Is that about it?

Does the fact the house committee approved the supplemental mean we finally get to see the text? Is it on Govtrack somewhere?

Also, I'm curious about what exactly lead to that 48-50 vote on Reid's bill:

Democratic Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas voted with Republicans against the withdrawal plan along with Senator Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent.

Only one Republican, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, broke ranks to vote with Democrats.

What exactly is going on with Nelson and Pryor? What specifically lead them to vote against the Reid bill? Is it possible that they, or some of the non-defecting-yet Republicans, might be more amenable to openly supporting the language of the supplemental amendment than they would the text of the Reid bill?

by Silent sound 2007-03-15 02:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

I'll try

Your numbered points encapsulate the basic idea of the plan, I think.

The key vulnerability to the plan is in the Senate: an amendment to strike the timetable will undoubtedly be offered; if the motion to table (ie kill) it does not obtain the necessary simple majority, the timetable is pretty much dead without the need for the GOP to kill the bill as a whole.

The absence of the text of the supplemental all this long while the Apps Committee has been chinwagging has got my goat more than somewhat!

(With all the copies floating around the Capitol, none are put online for the benefit of those of us without passes?!)

Bills originating in committee (as opposed to being introduced in the normal way) only get put on THOMAS after the committee has reported them out.

I can't make out why Pryor and Nelson and not others. Pryor is up in 08, Nelson not until 12. Why not Landrieu, say, who is up in 08?

by skeptic06 2007-03-15 03:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Thanks so much

The key vulnerability to the plan is in the Senate: an amendment to strike the timetable will undoubtedly be offered; if the motion to table (ie kill) it does not obtain the necessary simple majority, the timetable is pretty much dead without the need for the GOP to kill the bill as a whole.

OK. So basically, it sounds like for the timetable to live, then by the time the supplemental hits the Senate then the votes from today (50-48) have to reverse.

Is there anything that can be done to turn the results from today's vote into 50 for the timetable, 48 against?

Is there anything the Senate leadership plans to do to make this happen?

Bills originating in committee (as opposed to being introduced in the normal way) only get put on THOMAS after the committee has reported them out.

OK-- if you don't mind me asking, what does "reported out" mean and when does it happen? The vote to approve the bill today wasn't the same as "reporting out"?

by Silent sound 2007-03-15 05:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Thanks so much

I've gotta book.

But - my sense is that par for the course on S J Res 9 may be higher than for the Iraq supplemental bill benchmark/withdrawal provision.

For one thing, S J Res 9 is stand-alone, and therefore throwaway. The supplemental bill is must-pass, and therefore folks are likely to be more risk-averse about it.

Plus - there's an exhaustion factor coming in: the Schumer idea of voting on Iraq as many times as it takes I doubt will work out.

By the time the Senate gets the supplemental bill, it may be more difficult to gee senators up to taking radical stances on the issue, especially if they think the result is either going to be futile (because Bush will ignore it with signing statements or something) or trigger a constitutional clash with him that they wouldn't want.

What I'm saying - it's not just a question of switching two senators who voted against S J Res 9.

But I need to ponder it. (A lot!)

Reporting out is just the committee sending the bill back to the Senate (or House) to be dealt with. It may send it back in amended form. It may or may not actually submit a report.

Then it's up to the leaders when, if at all, to deal with the bill on the floor.

by skeptic06 2007-03-15 06:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

I wish I could agree...

but John Cornyn will never lose his senate seat for supporting Bush. We're talking about Texas.

by nerdoff 2007-03-15 02:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I wish I could agree...

Bush has a net negative approval rating in TX.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-15 02:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I wish I could agree...

Well, Rick Perry is more unpopular than GW Bush in Texas, yet still won reasonably comfortably.

Everything is relative

by v2aggie2 2007-03-15 07:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Repug Senators more vulnerable than ever!

Collins, Coleman, Warner, and the rest of the vulnerable Repubs are now on record. They support the Bush/Republican war.. period, unconditionally. Time for the Dem challengers to line up and bring them down.

by cmpnwtr 2007-03-15 02:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

is a victory how?

The Speaker went limp on this, and now there will be no real accountability.

by andgarden 2007-03-15 02:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

Defunding the war and making the war illegal are equivalent. Bush can find money illegally just as he can continue an illegal war. The point is what will the Congressional response be, and that depends on public pressure and momentum more than anything.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-15 02:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

um:

" Bush can find money illegally just as he can continue an illegal war."

What's he going to do, sell Heroin? Please, if Congress draws down the money, he has to withdraw. There are plenty of ways to tie Bush down, Pelosi chose the Diet Coke version.

by andgarden 2007-03-15 02:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

"Please, if Congress draws down the money, he has to withdraw."

Why? Walk me through this.

by BingoL 2007-03-15 03:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

the Dems can fund everything but the military and force him to negotiate that part of the budget.

Big Tent Democrat is all over this.

by andgarden 2007-03-15 04:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

Okay, I love Armando, but this is still what I don't understand: why do you imagine that Bush won't positively exult at the chance to play political chicken with American lives?

Dems vote to defund starting in October 2007.

August: Bush leaves troops in Iraq. Attempts to escalate number of troops. Reduces readiness requirements to send even more wounded troops in Iraq.

August: Dems say they will defund starting October 1.

September: Bush attempts to escalate number of troops. Reduces readiness requirements to send even more wounded troops in Iraq.

September: Dems say they will defund starting October 1.

October 1: 149,000 US troops in Iraq.

Do Dems defund? Or extend emergency funding to buy MREs for the troops in the field?

October 3: first reports of casualties due to defunding.

October 7: media frenzy begins in earnest. Time magazine cover: a donkey with bloody hands.

October 14: do we still insist on defunding? (This is why 'fully funded withdrawal' sounds feasible, and 'defunding' doesn't.)

At the moment, Republicans oppose enforceable readiness levels. They are actually, publicly, loudly against the requirement that we only send prepared troops into combat. I can't really get past that. I read the words I typed, and I still don't believe them.

I dunno. Maybe I'm a defeatist. But I feel like a realist. This administration has no shame, no respect for law, a complete disregard for the troops, an incredibly effecient message machine, and power.

God, I need a drink.

by BingoL 2007-03-15 04:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

THe key is that Bush wouldn't get another dime until he agreed to terms in advance. The Dems are refusing to use their considerable leverage.

by andgarden 2007-03-15 05:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

This makes a great deal of sense in principle, but I still have no idea how it works in practice. (Party because of an unsteady grasp of Civics 101, and party because of an extremely firm grasp of Bush 101.)

We'd shut down the government until he agreed? Of what, exactly, would his 'agreement' consist? Does he get to attach a signing statement?

by BingoL 2007-03-15 06:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

All Spending bills start in the House by tradition, something could theoretically come out of the Senate. and Bush can't print his own money--not constitutionally.

The President always goes through a charade of submitting a budget, but it is within the Speaker's power to write her own assuming she has a tight grasp over the Rules Committee (she does).

The Democrats could fund the war in their budget, or a withdrawl, or anything in between. They could even make all DoD funds contingent on all troops being out of Iraq within X months. Sure, the President could try a signing statement, but that would create a constituional crisis akin to not respecting the results of an election or a Supreme Court decision.

There is only one bill that doesn't require 60 votes in the Senate: the budget. The Democrats only have to come up with 50 votes (sans Johnson) to get benchmarks.

The President could veto such a budget, but then he wouldn't have any money for the war. If the Democrats can prove that they have to votes for that kind of budget, Bush will either have to negotiate with the Speaker or let the government shut down. The reason that happened in 1995 was that the Republicans were at first unwilling to negotiate after Clinton vetoed their budget. In any case, as BTD says, if Bush shuts down the government, he can't conduct a war in Iraq.

None of this is a sure thing for the Democrats, but it's a much better hand than they're claiming.

by andgarden 2007-03-15 06:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

First, thank you for educating me!

Second, I think my point is this: you say, "if Bush shuts down the government, he can't conduct a war in Iraq."

But the troops are still there! And Bush doesn't care. If they make all DoD funds contingent on withdrawal, and he doesn't withdraw, and the DoD has no funds ... he doesn't care. If he's 'forced' to veto a budget and shut down the government--with the troops still in Iraq--he'll do that.

Who do you think will say 'uncle' within days after the shut-down? The Democrats, who actually care that the troops aren't left swinging inthe breeze? Or Bush, who doesn't give a shit?

All I'm trying to say is, there's one thing--and correct me if I'm wrong--that we can't do: issue the order that actually brings troops home. I mean, we can de-fund this or fully-fund that or demand the other, but we can't actually issue that order, right?

I think you're underestimating the criminal negligence of Bush. You think that if he's faced with this choice:

A) Leave 130,000 unfunded, increasingly ill-equipped and undefended American troops in Iraq, or,
B) Listen to Congress and agree to a fully funded withdrawal,

You think he'll choose B, yes?

He'll choose A.

And the Dems, being responsible human beings, will start refunding the troops.

It's like the story of King Solomon and the baby. Bush doesn't care if the squalling infant is cut in half. But we do. So we'll cave first.

by BingoL 2007-03-15 06:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

If Bush outright ignores a law that clearly states the troops are to be removed by a certain date then that's not likely to be seen as reasonable by the american people and an appetite for impeachment would develop.

by Quinton 2007-03-15 08:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Funding the war through Oct 08. . .

A 3 for your optimism ...

by BingoL 2007-03-16 03:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Sestak? Please explain?

Joe Sestak has introduced a bill to re-deploy troops from Iraq by the end of 2007.

H.R. 960, Summary from Thomas (sorry I don't know how to construct a persistent link):

SUMMARY AS OF:
2/8/2007--Introduced.

Enhancing America's Security Through Redeployment from Iraq Act - Requires that, no later than December 31, 2007, all U.S. Armed Forces serving in Iraq be redeployed outside of Iraq, either to locations within the Middle East or Southwest Asia regions or other regions or nations, or to the United States. Provides redeployment exceptions with respect to: (1) special operations forces performing counter-terrorism operations or support operations for Iraqi security forces; (2) military liaison teams; (3) air support operations for Iraqi security forces; (4) counter-terrorism operations in Iraq; and (5) security for U.S. diplomatic missions in Iraq. Allows funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for Operation Iraqi Freedom to be obligated or expended after such deadline only for personnel performing such excepted operations.

Expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should: (1) take a leadership role in diplomatic efforts and negotiations for the long-term stability of Iraq; and (2) convene an international conference to provide economic aid for rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq and other efforts essential to ensure its long-term stability.

He may not be supporting the supplemental, but that would most likely be because he feels it doesn't go far enough to bring our troops home.

I only saw this last night and wasn't able to contact his office today. Hopefully I will be able to tomorrow, and get clarification. Meanwhile, if someone can explain, please do.

And, I am pretty certain that Joe Sestak is not part of the blue dog coalition.

by MH in PA 2007-03-15 03:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Ah, nevermind, sort of

Reading is fundamental. When I first read it, I missed Sestak's name in the update - I thought that part pertained only to Acuri.

I think it's BULLSHIT to say Sestak is "equivocating" about Iraq - he campaigned on bringing the troops home, he has sponsored ONE bill and it is to BRING THE TROOPS HOME BY THE END OF THE YEAR. He doesn't like the supplemental because he thinks it's the WRONG approach. His comment is only that he is glad the rest of them are moving in the right direction - towards his position. But obviously they aren't there yet. That's NOT equivocating.

But damn, it's not like the lefty blogosphere would appreciate someone for actually standing on principal.

I will still contact his office. I suspect he will ultimately vote for it if his is the deciding vote, because it's better than nothing.

by MH in PA 2007-03-15 03:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ah, nevermind, sort of

I've encouraged my Rep. to vote "no." We can do better.

by andgarden 2007-03-15 04:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Sestak

Matt-
I think Joe is trying to move the Congress toward a quicker removal of our troops the conflict. What's wrong with this response?

by quadmom 2007-03-15 06:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

It's not in lockstep?

I don't know any other reason.

I went back to the post from the 14th, and see that the information about Joe's bill was posted as a reply to Matt - yet Matt's only update was to correct that Joe is not a member of the blue dogs. And then he completely ignores Joe's bill in this post originally; then calls it "equivocating"?

Meanwhile, Joe is going to have a tough re-election fight as it is, and it sure won't help if we have supporters being picked off by "friendly" fire.

by MH in PA 2007-03-16 03:44AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Iraq: Democrats Moving in the Right Direction

You know what's a good way to prevent Osama bin Laden from gloating about a US "defeat" in the Iraqi civil war? I'll tell you: hunt him down and kill him. But he ain't in in Iraq.

The rules for engaging in foreign civil wars are:
1) Don't.
2) If you do, pick a side.
3) Make sure your side wins.
Whose side are we on in Iraq?

--TP

by Rethymniotis 2007-03-15 06:51PM | 0 recs