Send It Back
by Mark Adams
For reasons I neither appreciate, approve of, nor care to understand, impeachment is still off the table.
(Okay, it's a numbers thing, and we lose, I know.)
So, what do you do when Bush, Inc. insists on their war in perpetuity, and laughs at the Democrats' pitiful effort to impose benchmarks he can and will ignore, and timetables we know he will never honor.
Atrios says send the little punk in the Oval Office the exact same funding bill he vetoed the last time, again and again. If he want's to defund the troops, so be it.
So does MarKOS.
Joe Biden approved of the idea last week.
How about you? Do you you agree with this statement?
“The American people gave Congress a mission to end the war - not a mission to accept meaningless benchmarks or endless temporary extensions. There is only one way to stop the president - Congress should use its funding authority to end the war. Congress passed a plan to support our troops and bring them home, and they should do it again. And if the president vetoes it - if he vetoes any bill that supports our troops but sets conditions - then he alone is standing in the way of what our troops need.”
Who said that? -- John Edwards, and has been for a while.
Glad these other guys climbed aboard the "screw him" bandwagon. Edwards read the tea leaves and has been saying this for over a month now.
"I have urged Congress to stand up to the President's veto threat, rather than back down in a false game of chicken. If he does veto funding for our troops, Congress should send the same bill right back to him. And they should do this again and again, until the President finally understands that he cannot reject the will of the overwhelming majority American people.That was back on April 11th, just two days before he called for Wolfowitz's resignation from the world bank.
His reaction yesterday to the news that Wolfi finally was out?
"It's about time.Isn't is about time you stopped looking for what's wrong with this candidate or than one, and helped elect the one person who's consistently ahead of the curve?
OK, here's the thing: Democrats need to move the ball forward on the Iraq war issue. They need to show progress in order to justify having been giving the majority.
Sending the same bill back again isn't going to do that.
For one thing, what makes us think that we'll get MORE votes the second, third, fourth time we send him the bill?
Not only that: it's going to piss people off. The people already hate Bush. Why risk having the people hate us too?
The people want out of Iraq. We want out of Iraq. Let's get out of Iraq -- even if it is one step at a time. At least we'd be moving in the right direction.
Now, the fact is, politics is all about flexibility. Not on core issues, mind you -- and ending the war is a core issue for the Democrats.
But why make this an all or nothing issue?
Democrats need to end the war -- even it is by inches at a time.
Sending the same bill back again and again won't do it.
Yes, Dems must be resolute. But it would be better if they were resolute and actually accomplished something too.
One last thing: How much do the Dems gain if they say, "Well, gosh, we tried, but he wouldn't budge -- the bastard."
Do the Dems gain anything? No. They sound like mushy wimps.
Better to say, "We didn't get everything we wanted but we are moving in the right direction -- out of Iraq."
I took them four more years to end Vietnam after they deauthorized the Tonkin Gulf resolution.
You send it back, he votes it, he defunded the war himself.
Or you don't send him any money at all -- and we own the ensuing catastrophy.
Better just to end it, like it began -- quickly. Just do it.
I'm done being reasonable with an unreasonable POTUS. Everything, and you know I mean Every. Damn. Thing. is political one-upsmanship with this guy.
He doesn't care about the troops, he doesn't care about Iraq, he doesn't care about the oil, he doesn't care about democracy either here or over there.
All he cares about is winning the next little petty political point.
You send back a bill that demands progress or we're out, and gets us out anyway in coordination with the progress that can be measured if the Iraqis start becoming accountable for their own mess.
If he doesn't sign it, screw him.
You make him accountable for the first time in his presidency. A government without accountability is lawlessness colored by a tissue of legitimacy and held together only through the threat of force or fear of violence. It is anachy.
There is no negotiating with this guy, no reason, no accountability.
We act resonably, expecting a bit in return, and he will not budge. Christ, he can waive the benchmarks and timetables much like he gave lip service to the requirement in the AUMF that he exhaust all diplomatic efforts.
He's carved out exceptions to 800 laws for himself in his signing statements.
Pelosi and Reid took offered to take out the pork -- no deal. They offered to make the timetable flexible at his discretion -- no deal. They offered to change the language in the waivable benchmarks so they wouldn't sound like they were mandatory -- again, no deal.
Incrementalism? Bull. Like that will look like we accomplished anything but looking just as weak as they say we are.
Enough, Ara, enough.
The first thing I want to know is this:
How many votes do we get to pass the same bill again this time around?
Obama talks of trying to improve it and build until we get a veto proof majority in the Senate. He want's 16 more votes.
I never hear him talk about the 59 GOP House members who have to join a unanimous dem majority to override a veto.
And if we get more votes, does that make our position stronger -- correspondingly if less are we weaker.
Being "strong" is refusing to give Shrub any money for his war unless it's used to bring everybody home. If he doesn't want that, fine. He doesn't get jack.
This isn't Clinton vs Gingrich over tax policy. This is about life and death.
Let me ask you this Ara. Would you vote to give Bush one more dime for the war? I wouldn't. Worrying about how this will play in an election 18 months from now is Just. Plain. Wrong.
Clearly the right thing to do is vote to cut off funds -- or at least initiate impeachment hearings.
Those are the truest acts that the Dem majority could do. Many (not me) would say ANYTHING LESS is a sell-out.
That's on an individual level. The odds of getting more than a few others to join you is slim to none. And Slim just caught the last train to Crawford.
So what do you? I say you go for a victory no matter how small. Get (or extend) your winning streak.
Forward movement -- even if it is inches at a time.
The goal is a worthy one.
Tell that to the next mother who lost a son, or daughter, or a wife who has to spend the next 25 years taking care of the brain-dead father of her children -- children whose names he cannot remember.
Inches, feh. We can stop this thing -- now. We don't have to give Bush one damn dime. What are you proposing? That Congress send up a "clean bill" like Bush wants? They practically did that already.
What incremental victory are we going to get out of this. I see nothing to gain by giving Bush exactly what he wants -- so screw him.
I know how you feel about this. I felt the same way too: if he vetoes the bill(s) HE'S the one cutting off the funds, not Congress. Screw him -- it'll be "his" war to lose however he wants.
But I thought about it some more and here's what I found: the public (and the widows and orphans) won't see it that way. For one thing, they won't have the benefit of the veterans' benefit the original bill called for. And so they will indict the whole lot of them for failing to end this occupation. They'll hold Bush AND Congress equally responsible.
Worst of all worlds.
Fact is, we just do not have the votes to end this war -- you need 60 in Senate to get cloture and 67 to override his veto. In reality, we don't even have 50 in the Senate.
Similar numbers in the House.
So the best the caucus can hope for is to declare victory and come home...to fight in the elections of 08.
The next president will have to be the one to end the occupation.
"Not only that: it's going to piss people off. The people already hate Bush. Why risk having the people hate us too?"
I'm not sure I understand this, Ara. Other than the perpetually pissed-off base (and who cares), who is going to hate Democrats for the authorization with deadlines? Why doesn't that "move the ball forward"?
who is going to hate Democrats for the authorization with deadlines? Why doesn't that "move the ball forward"?
I hate to keep dragging sports analogies into this discussion, but let's switch from football to basketball...
The Dems need to win the next game. If they can win that one, then they need to win the next one. And so forth.
In other words, it's not good enough (or realistic enough) to say "I want to win the NBA Championship." You have to play (and win) one game at a time.
Mark, you're going to hate this but I'll quote Pistons small forward Tayshaun Prince (who will be guarding King James):
"You have to go up 1-0. Then you have to go up 2-0. Then you have to go up 3-0 and then you've built some momentum....and then you can't let them off the mat: you have to go 4-0."
The Democrats haven't even gotten to 1-0 yet. If anything, they are 0-1.
Final observation: there is no "trying." "Trying" just means you failed with honor.
The electorate did not give the Dems the majority for them to fail with honor.
P.S. Now it may very well be that the winning streak the Dems are REALLY trying for is the electoral kind.
2006: They're 1-0
2008: Going for 2-0
...and so forth.
It's not for me to read the minds of Rahm Emmanuel, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et. al.
(I omit John Edwards because I think he means it when he says cut off funding now.)
I'm still not getting it (I don't watch much sports). Are you saying that, because Bush vetoes the appropriation, that can't be a "win?"
In simple terms, everyone is a loser each time Bush vetoes one of these bills -- Bush, the Republicans, the Democrats, the American people, the troops in Iraq.
Lose-lose-lose-lose-lose.
Hell, even the defense contractors are losers if, theoretically, the veto prevents them from getting their contracts implemented.
So instead of losing, I'm suggesting that the Dems send up a bill, a compromise bill, something that gains even an inch and gets the president's signature.
I'm no mind reader but maybe Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer (and the top tier candidates) figured that this was Plan B all along: give him a weak bill to sign and then go hell for leather until Nov. 08.
Back in December I said this and after nearly 6 months I think it still applies:
The problem is that we'll be haunted the entire time by the words of a young Lt. JG John F. Kerry: "How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?"I gree with what you are saying about Democrats needing to not give Republicans ammunition to blame them for whatever happens in Iraq.
But if you assume that we won’t be withdrawing substantially before the end of Bush’s term, why not do the right thing and let Bush whine about it and then, as usual, do the whatever he pleases. Do you think he's going to start to listen to the Democratic Congress or follow the law or something?
As I’ve said many times, what the Democrats need is to shake the pusillanimous frame hung on them by Republicans. You don’t do that by capitulating to an isolated, delusional president with an approval rating of 29%.
I would say our disagreement is on tactics not strategy.
why not do the right thing and let Bush whine about it and then, as usual, do the whatever he pleases
Hey, I was the only guy out there who thought Bush would not veto the first bill, instead issuing another signing statement.
Seriously, no one is capitulating to the president. Fact is, the Dems do not have enough support to do what you suggest.
Not yet, anyway.
"Seriously, no one is capitulating to the president."
No?
If it walks like a duck...
Quack quack? Maybe not:
"I think at some juncture, the American people are going to say 'Mr. President, you made your point. Now sign the bill,'" said Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
Hoyer has the right idea. And he's pretty conservative compared to Pelosi, Murtha and many others in the caucus.
Hang in there Dems. No one said this was going to be easy.
Sorry, Ara. I say you're wrong on this one.
Democrats look spineless and, naturally, Republicans will shamelessly and hypocritically use it to best partisan effect.
I see absolutely nothing that prevented Democrats from backing Bush into a corner on this. They'd better damn well have something else up their sleeves or I may start looking for a third way myself.
I really don't get this. Do Pelosi and Reid know something we don't?
They just undermined every strong stance they took since the beginning of the year. They could have compromised on anything else, but capitulating on the war funding -- on a issue of such great import -- makes them look just as weak kneed as they've always been painted.
The only thing they accomplished was to kick the can down the road. Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich are the only members of Congress who retain any integrity right now as far as I'm concerned.
I'm out of town for a few days and I haven't had time to scan Daily Kos, etc. for reaction (note: it took me 19 hours to get from Baton Rouge to Seattle -- something about weather in Houston).
Judging from your comments, I can imagine that people are angry and disappointed.
I'll have more to say later, but I'll say this much right now: It's not the best outcome, but the Dems did move the ball forward.
And I wouldn't discount the value of putting benchmarks into the public discussion.
More later...
Judging from your comments, I can imagine that people are angry and disappointed.
You have no idea. 91%, disappointed to "livid," when I looked at the kos poll.
There's only one thing I'd like to know: did they have the votes to pass the exact same vetoed appropriations bill again or did enough of the yellow-dogs defect to make that impossible.
The latter is the only possible defense Democrats could offer.
It's not an excuse. It is a reality.
And another thing...
Did everyone think Congress could just dictate the end of the war? If so, they have as flawed a view of our system as Bush does: it ignores basic checks and balances. Congress proposes and the president disposes.
I say it again (and until I'm blue in the face): The Dems are going to have to get this done one inch at a time.
No one said this would be easy. It is going to take many, many, many whacks before the thing breaks open.
If anyone wants to quit because of one setback, then fine -- be my guest. But quitters don't win and winners don't quit.
"Did everyone think Congress could just dictate the end of the war?"
Dude, whoever said this was about policy, rather than politics (at least, in the short run). Of course Bush is going to do what he chooses. This is all about what the Democrats do. They folded on something they said was a matter of life-and-death principle. And, instead of putting Bush in a box, they put themselves in one.
Nobody's quitting on the Democrats, at least until some alternative comes along. We've called and written all of our reps, pro and con.