appreciate the update, disagree on the strategy.

it is extremely important progressives do not join with Republicans in order to defeat this legislation at this time.

i have, and will continue to ask my (progressive) reps to vote against this bill. i do not support funding the war for an additional 18 months. i did not spend days canvassing and phone backing for dems during the last cycle in order to see them continue the war.

furthermore,  i can not see a withdrawal being forced 2 months before the 2008 election.

The simple fact is that if this bill is defeated in the House, then there will be another--weaker--funding bill.

no, no, no! the alternative could/should be the same bill but with funding for only 3/4 months... to be reauthorized every 3/4 months. keep the issue on the table, keep the national conversation going. make it clear that congress will (soon) fund only a withdrawal - while working for the votes to make it happen.

This is a really bad bill. Let Congress pass a clean 3 month resolution.

These are really crucial insights that Chris posts here.

Something I would personally add is that it seems to me that there are going to be negative repercussions from the public on whoever seems to be "in the way" on getting stuff done with Iraq. If this passes and the Republicans block it, the Republicans will be "in the way", and if the Progressives block it from passing, the Progressives will be "in the way".

Look back at those polls from earlier this month-- it seems pretty clear that the public wants the war to end, but doesn't want the funding to stop. Never mind whether this is contradictory, it's what the public wants. Something like the supplemental here-- which funds the war but sets conditions for withdrawal-- is exactly what the public wants, even if it makes little real-world sense since the conditions have no teeth or enforceability.

Meanwhile, the Democrats really don't seem to be helping themselves with their inability to come up with a consistent plan for Iraq in Congress. I can't help but think the American public thinks these repeated nonbinding-no-defunding-no-funding-with- conditions attempts at an Iraq bill are anything but spinning their wheels. I suspect perceptions of the Democrats, and confidence in their agenda, is faltering as a result. The Democrats need to recapture the American people's attention and confidence.

This bill, assuming it is presented even remotely competently in the media, would be popular among the public. If the bill gets blocked by the Senate Republicans or a Bush veto, then the Senate Republicans and Bush will be going against the public. The reaction from the public will put pressure on-- if not the white house, at least the   Senators. The next time a bill like this comes up, things will be easier and smoother for the progressives.

But if the bill gets blocked by the progressives, then the progressives will be going against the public. Pressure will, if the public notices anything happened at all against the background of other Democratic Iraq bills quietly failing, be put against the Progressives, and either way, the next time a bill like this comes up, things will be much more difficult for the progressives.

It doesn't make sense to vote for something unconscionable just because an opinion poll said to do it. And the public is willing to reward principle, so if the Dems passed a measure with defunding and it actually brought the troops home, the public would surely side with their desire to end the war over their desire not to do so via defunding resolutions. However, that is not the choice being presented here. This funding bill is going to pass, period. The perfect bill that does everything the Progressive caucus wants is (if it's possible at all) not going to come up in the first three months of the new congress, period. The choice facing the progressives at this time is whether to pass the funding bill with a timetable and other conditions, or to allow the rest of the Congress to pass it without.

This supplemental doesn't give the progressives everything, but it does give progressives something-- it is progress. It is a step forward, and opens a path toward even more progress later. The alternative is to vote the bill down, have the bill come back without the timetable, and get nothing-- nothing either now or later.

Absolutely.

The current bill is seriously and needlessly flawed, because the leadership yielded deference to blue dog timidity. House Democratic leaders had an opportunity to construct a bill that not only reflected the values of the anti-Iraq occupation progressives, but the expressed will of the nation.

Now, they're stuck with a feckless bill that betrays Congress' Constitutional due diligence to "chain the dogs of war" and end this disaster responsibly.

Progressives are sick and tired of having to always make nice. Well, that shit is over. The Democratic Congress must act with conviction and resolve. Our troops deserve nothing less.

Here's what Rep. Pete Stark said:

"The best way to keep [the troops] safe is to bring them home," Stark said. "It’s difficult to oppose [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She’s a great leader and working wonders to get this passed, but some things I can’t vote for."

He added that if the resolution fails, "It won’t look good, like the Democrats can’t get their act together, but that’s OK. We can write a better bill."

Why are you and Moveon bending over for Bush Democrats?

Chris,

Very intriguing. I was dead set against this bill from the outset, but I do see the value of picking the right battles. It is very hard for me to cede ground to the pro-war position, since we have only recently been given the political opportunity and mandate to advance the anti-war agenda; however, I must admit that I'll have to consider your remarks more thoroughly.

I think that's the key message of this whole craziness for antiwar activists and progressives trying to bring this war to a halt through Congressional action.

At the end of the day, as Matt has astutely pointed out as of late and many seem to be ignoring, the votes might be there for something stronger if public will and antiwar organizing was behind it. But it's simply not, and thus you end up with small steps forward like this-- which should not be embraced along the lines of compromise, but as incomplete steps forward toward building consensus and bringing about a redeployment of our troops.

At the end of the day, this is always a crapshoot because either way-- whether this gets passed or not-- the war goes on as it is another day. The debate over strategy and principle in stopping it cannot gloss over this disturbing fact, but ideally should only make it more imperative to organize with the aim of getting something done. So get out. Organize. Make those handful of Blue Dogs and mass of Republicans (especially those Republicans who are trying to have it multiple ways on Iraq) who vote against this feel some heat. Show them that there is good reason, and political upside, to voting the right way next time around.

The American people voted for a new direction and movement toward an exit strategy in November, and they're getting that now. Now its time to move onward and focus on building the will for some teeth and urgency in that process, and making it such that the people won't accept anything else. We're not there yet, but we've got plenty of potential if we stop fighting amongst ourselves and start plotting our next moves forward.

Our job is make what they can't do an issue.

Otherwise, they'd never have anything to shoot for.

Seriously.  Can you imagine if blue dogs actually supported what we wanted?  A fit of despair would creep in and we'd all have to wonder if we asked for too little.

Nature of the beast.  What "we" want will always remain ahead of the game.  As well it should.  It should never be any different.

   We have, unfortunately, already lost the battle for a stronger bill (temporarily).  Let's not continue fighting battles we've already lost.  Let's fight this one.  We can win.  

I cannot believe that the 84.6% of MoveOn members who voted to support this bill actually understood what it says.  I doubt the outcome would be anything but the exact opposite if it was explained something like this: "do you support the current bill which will mandate the removal of troops by xxx if President Bush agrees to so so at that time?"

How about this for a different strategy: pass this out of the House.  It gets voted down by the Senate.  Pass a better bill.  It gets voted down by the Senate or vetoed.  Pass an even better bill.

Continue until the WH and Joementum are forced to compromise.

Ok, I think there is about a .001% chance of this happening, but...

What if all this Repub talk about the surge actually working this time is not just another pollyanna-ish attempt to blow smoke up our butts?

All the crap about Democrats being defeatists and wanting America to lose, etc., etc., etc. may actually gain some traction with those Americans who don't suck from the teat of FNC.

If you read some of the stuff the wingers are saying, it seems, well, I won't say optimistic -- they are always thinking this time is the start of things turning around -- but at least more fact based.

Ok, never mind, just woke up...

will at least the names iam being called have changed.first I was unpatriotic,then I was a traiter,now Iam politicly belligerant.you know why the blue dogs and progrissives are voting to kill more americans.becouse stupid fuckers like you will do nothing to hold them accountable and they know it.when it comes time for these people to get re-elected,I have no doubt you people will run right down and vote for them.pathitic.

Every Democrat (and hopefully every Republican) ought to be calling this war what it is: the Iraq Civil War. Everyone should say that on TV, on the Internets, in the newspapers: the Iraq Civil War.

On this one I happen to disagree with you, Chris. But perhaps we can agree on at least what to call this fiasco. Sometimes words matter.

I don't agree with that at all. It doesn't matter what gets passed at this point! Hasn't Bush made that abundantly clear by now?

1. If Congress passes a funding bill with "conditions", Bush will ignore the conditions.

Meanwhile Bush will continue the escalation.

2. If Congress passes a funding bill that sets a timetable for a pull-out, Bush will ignore the timetable.

He will claim it's in violation of his Constitutional (Monarchical) power to wage war. At best it will take years to be resolved in the courts, and most likely the courts have been packed with so many Bush-clones that he might actually win such a ridiculous argument. Even if not the courts might just punt the whole thing as a "political" question on which they decline to rule.

Meanwhile Bush will continue the escalation.

3. If Congress passes funding without strings attached, Bush will continue the escalation.

No matter what Congress does, Bush will continue the escalation until he's stopped.

What to do? Vote to stop the war and refuse to do anything else. That's what. If the votes aren't there, so what? They will be eventually, and meanwhile keep fighting for what's right.

This is not an issue where you can compromise because any compromise is meaningless. Bush will simply take what he wants and ignore the rest, so no compromise is possible. All we can do is  fight and continue to fight until the Congress is forced to do the right thing.

If there's only 20 votes right now, tough. Just start with 20 and keep going. Keep introcuding legislation to cut off funding, impose measures, etc. The pressure's on and it's only going to increase until the war is stopped. The American people want an end to the war. The Congress wants to get along with the President and must be forced to do the right thing, one bloody step at a time.

t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11 t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22 t23 t24 t25 t26 t27 t28 t29 t30 t31 t32 t33 t34 t35 t36 t37 t38 t39 t40 t41 t42 t43 t44 t45 t46 t47 t48 t49 t50 t51 t52 t53 t54 t55 t56 t57 t58 t59 t60 t61 t62 t63 t64 t65 t66 t67 t68 t69 t70 t71 t72 t73 t74 t75 t76 t77 t78 t79 t80 t81 t82