The Pelosi/Murtha plan sounds like a realistic implementation of a rolling funding cut-off.  

The problem with an immediate funding cut-off is that you alredy have 140,000 troops in Iraq.  This makes the challenge to allocate fund necesary to safely withdrawla our people from Iraq without enabling Cheney et al to reallocte those funds to effectvely stay in Iraq or to "withdrawal" somewhere elese like Iran.

If the only way Bush can keep troops in Iraq is to extend the tour of duty of those soldiers already "in country" you will quickly have a politically untenable situation for the GOP and the Senioe GOP ledership will be compeled to also call for getting out of Iraq.

Even our own presidential hopefuls reflexively quail in fear before the RWNM, instead of standing up and publicly denouncing it for the bigotry megaphone that it is.  John Edwards lost my long-time support over the way he tucked his tail and whimpered when that repugnant bigot Bill Donohue went after Edwards' bloggers.  And Obama fell all over himself apologizing for speaking the simple truth that George Bush has wasted the lives of 3100+ Americans (not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis) with his vanity war in Iraq.

When we can finally find someone who'll go on national TV and turn this into a narrative about the naked and shameless bigotry of the RWNM and the contemptible stenography of our Presstitute Media, I'll start to feel good about our prospects as a party.  And that's also going to be when those invertebrate Democrats in Congress grow backbones.  Maybe someone should hold daily replays of Bill Clinton's smackdown of Chris Wallace, to show them how it's done.

Sensible, Chris, very sensible and realistic.  We should do what we reasonably can with the power that we have, fighting only those battles, which we can win.  This is a much needed lesson in pragmatism.

Cheers.

The Pelosi/Murtha plan sounds like it is worth trying.  I like the Feingold and MCGovern bills, but it may not be realistic to expect that they can win when even non-binding resolutions cannot come to a vote.  At least it is something.

Is John Edwards plan similar to Murtha's?  I got this yesterday from the Edwards' campaign:

"Stop the escalation and force an immediate withdrawal by using funding caps to restrict the total number of troops in Iraq to 100,000, which would require an immediate drawdown of 40,000-50,000 combat troops without stranding or underfunding a single soldier still in Iraq. Any troops beyond the 100,000 level should be redeployed immediately."

Chris - Excellent analysis.  We'd all like a quicker end to the war but realistically Bush has his funding for the current troop levels through Sept 30, 2007 which is the end of the fiscal year.  The only way to change that would be to rescind the existing appropriations which is very hard to do and is not likely to happen.

I think Pelosi/Murtha have it right to use the supplemental appropriations request and the 2008 budget as a way to start drawing down troops in Iraq.

I know some pooh pooh the resolution currently on the floor as not having teeth but it is important to remember this is the first real debate Congress is having about getting out of Iraq. That is because the Dems control Congress.  If the Rs still controlled Congress, they would be falling in line supporting the surge.  Instead, we are seeing Repubs defect all over the place to support the anti-surge resolution.  This shows that Bush's support for staying the course in Iraq amongst Rs is weak and that will be important when we get to the legislation to "defund" the war.

Getting out of this mess will not be easy but I think Pelosi/Murtha have a solid plan.  We seem to be headed in the right direction even if it would be nice if it were moving faster.

With the repugs only able to use one-liners with no nuance, the Dem plan will work, albeit slowly.The bigger problem is the repug noise machine.  Slowly, talk left is gaing strength.  We need wealthy Dems to put huge amounts of cash into new media outlets leaning progressive.  The Repugs lost over 5 billion on their startup, but they kept pouring in money despite the losses.  The wealthy Dems must do the same thing if we are to even the media playing field; particularly talk radio which is having a hugh impact. Sean, Rush, Liddy, O'reily, Beck, etc.

Maybe we don't have enough legislative power at the moment to stop Bush. We do have some influence as opinion drivers, so let's help consolidate public opinion, and make 2008 into a transformational election. This feeds Chris's suggestion of yesterday about running primary candidates.

Maybe 1/3 of the public has always sat in the "Bush-true-believer" corner. We are in the 1/3 who "we-never-drank-the-koolaid" category. A lot of Democratic legislators cautiously straddle the middle, meaning they worry about the 1/3 in the middle, who are less committed, who (they think) might be swayed back to the Republican column if Bush waves the bloody flag, or goes into Iran or something. Wars are known to whip up patriotism.

On the other hand, a disaster like Iraq can be a watershed event that flip the other way.

The key is to help the snowball of public opinion rolling downhill a little faster. Insurgent candidates do very well if they are riding a lot of anger, and these things have a way of overshooting, so it could easily take out more Conservative Democrats as well as Republicans. Hillary will be in deep doo-doo if she doesn't get off the fence.

Bush wading deeper into the big muddy, US influence weakening world wide, and the present disaster in Iraq plays right into our hand, discrediting the Republican Party, and even discrediting the right-wing of the Democratic Party. Congress fiddles while the snowball rolls faster, convincing the middle 1/3 to vote out the bums who got us into this mess.

Assume present trends continue. We will see a small or big continuation of the 2006 election trends. Republican Party losses will mount, and Conservative Dems will be replaced by more liberal ones.

How can we position ourselves to take advantage?

I know that the Democratic Party activists on the ground are a whole lot more liberal than the elected Dems, and a whole lot more anti-war. They (we) can have a huge influence in the primaries, if we have challengers ready to go. Perhaps the Iraq issue can have a major impact at the state level, for example, let's see some candidates for Governor demanding: "Bring back our National Guard".

Bush and the Republicans are playing right into our hands on this.

...to see a poll where 53% favor cutting funding (45% approve of not funding escalation, 8% approve of not funding the war AT ALL). The best thing about this is, by huge margins people are blaming Republicans for this (and mostly rightly).

Remember: "Republicans are Obstructors or Democrats are the Party of Getting Shit Done" everything must be fit into that framework.

The Democrats lost me when they took Impeachment off the table. They could have used that to do what the nation wants with respect to Iraq instead of the symbolic bullshit they are involved in now.

Hopefully, there will be a good third party to vote for in 2,008 because these weaklings don't deserve the progressive vote.

Sen. Edwards' Comprehensive Proposal to Enact His Plan for Iraq came out yesterday
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2 /14/112343/492

This morning, our campaign released the following statement regarding the senator's plan for Iraq:

Chapel Hill , North Carolina -- Senator John Edwards today laid out a comprehensive proposal for Congress to implement his plan to stop President Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq and begin an immediate withdrawal by capping funding for troops at 100,000, and requiring withdrawal of all combat troops over the next 12-18 months.

"Nearly a month ago, I called on Congress to block the President's escalation of war.  Unfortunately, while Congress has been debating Iraq , President Bush has been surging troops into Iraq . The escalation is underway, so blocking it is no longer enough - now we have to take the next step and cap funding to mandate a withdrawal," Edwards said.  "We don't need debate; we don't need non-binding resolutions; we need to end this war, and Congress has the power to do it. They should use it now. In order to get the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving."

Edwards believes that the only solution to the situation in Iraq is a political solution, which requires all the parties in Iraq to take responsibility for the future of their country. By leaving Iraq , the Iraqi people, regional powers, and the entire international community will be forced to engage in the search for a political solution that will end the sectarian violence and create a stable Iraq . Escalating the war sends exactly the wrong signal to the Iraqi people, regional powers and the world.

Edwards' plan for Iraq calls for Congress to:

* Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops.  Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.

* Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.  

* Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization.  The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war.  President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.

* Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

After withdrawal, Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide. In addition, Edwards believes the U.S. should step up our diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria and work to bring about a political solution to the sectarian violence inside Iraq, including through a peace conference.  He also believes the U.S. must intensify its efforts to train the Iraqi security forces.

The genius of Murtha's plan is not its incrementalism, but the fact that it cuts the legs out from under the war=patriotism argument by forcing war proponents to argue why sending troops into combat without adequate equipment, training, and combat readiness is patriotic.

Why is a timeline the only way to end the war?  Don't most wars end with treaties?  It seems to me the quickest way to end it would be to sign accords with Iraq's neighbors and Iraq.  

And the reason many progressives are against timelines is precisely because that damages our negotiating ability in such accords.

What really makes you think a timeline will be somehow more effective than a non-binding resolution?  Especially if it's Congress who comes up with it?  What we need is a government willing to bring the troops home, and not leave the china shop with the door open for a couple more bulls to go smashing around inside.

To think that liberal activists will be most effective at bringing this about through promoting timelines seems....dumb.

I'd say this is as good an idea as any, Chris.

As I said in response to Glenn Greenwald's Salon piece the other day, Pelosi had said that the nonbinding resolution was just a first step, and would be followed by binding legislation - and I wanted to see what she had in mind before I concluded she was moving too slowly.  I'm glad she came through.

As a tactical move, attaching requirements to the Iraq supplemental funding bill is a good way to proceed, because vetoing or filibustering the funding bill puts Bush or the Senate GOP in the position of cutting off funding for the troops to further their political agenda.

Glad to see you are beginning to understand the power structure in Washington.  Power for foreign policy rests with the executive.  Commander in Chief rests with the executive.  If the president does not want to negotiate with Iraq neighbors about stabilizing Iraq, nothing Congress can do can force his hand.  This is why policy was set when Bush was re-elected in 2004.  So many of us worked for Kerry, even if we did not entirely agree with Kerry.  Bush has shut out the voice of the American people and does not listen.  

Congress cannot overreach or they risk losing support and strengthening Bush and his Iraq policy.  Congress is a DELIBERATIVE body and slow to act by design.  The 2006 elections could provide oversight, start the discussion and put pressure to abandon current policy.  The 2006 elections were not going to change Iraq policy.  There are 49 GOP senators that can block Congress absent procedural moves.  

It is time we quit complaining about the Dems not doing anything and start complaining about the GOP blocking everything.  The Bush name and anyone associated with his administration needs to be treated as MUD and a reason why none of those people should ever be elected to office.

My question yesterday.

My instinct is that, right now, it wouldn't - not if it were in the base text of the Iraq supplemental bill, and the vote was on an amendment to strike it.

Like I said, I'd hope that, since this is a leadership initiative, Nancy would have made sure that the votes were in the bag.

On the other hand, she may be bluffing, and hoping to start a bandwagon.

Chris Bowers is a smart guy. But after spending months "figuring out a way to end the war," he only figured out a way to keep it going forever...

http://www.democrats.com/bowers-plan-to- stay-in-iraq-forever

Chris, I think you make a smart, well-reasoned argument that still gets it wrong.

You're right that "figuring out a way to end the war, when you are still not even close to the votes for a timetable, is not the easiest thing to do."  As an immediate tactical manuver, the House Democratic leadership's emphasis on troop "readiness" has a lot to recommend it-- it could line up a majority of votes behind a measure with at least some teeth. (In fact, I was part of a New York delegation raising the "readiness" argument to a Schumer staffer when lobbying Congress on Jan. 29. For what it's worth, it was new to her and she liked it.)

But if our side focuses only on how to craft a proposal that might get a majority next week, we end up accommodating to the current shape of the Iraq debate inside the Beltway-- instead of changing it. The only way we'll win an end to this war is if we can reframe that debate. We've had some successes on that front in the last year or so (for instance, a turning point in public opinion came when a majority started to agree that the war in Iraq was increasing, not decreasing, the dangers of terrorism). But we need more.

The Republican charge that a funding cutoff means "not supporting the troops" is mind-bendingly absurd. Jim Webb has been very good on this-- it's kind of crazy to say that we have to keep fighting this bloody war to protect the troops that we sent to fight it. What we need is political leaders with the courage to say that the emperor has no clothes-- to say, isn't it obvious that the best way to protect our troops is to get them on a plane back to Buffalo, back to the Bronx, ASAP? And that this is the only thing Congress should provide money for?

Our side needs to walk on two legs. We've got to say bluntly that this war serves no good purpose, creates more misery the longer it goes on, and needs to end now. Any politician who votes to spend more money on this senseless slaughter-- Democrat or Republican-- should be made to feel the heat, and we need leaders who will urge voters in their district to do just that.

We also need smart efforts to pass resolutions of disapproval and practical restrictions on Bush's ability to wage war. The stronger the better, and clearly we're some distance from having the votes for a funding cutoff.

But in the end, the only way to stop this war is for Congress to deny Bush the money to wage it. And we're never going to get that result unless we argue for it.

Chris, you make some nods towards walking on both of these legs.  But you call for "backing the Murtha / Pelosi plan with everything we have got"-- and say nothing about organizing grassroots pressure on members of Congress who so far won't vote for a funding cutoff.

This picks the wrong target.  Why is support growing in Congress for compromise measures like the "readiness strategy"? Proposals like this one get their energy from the growth in public support for getting out of Iraq.  A Congress that's not ready to do that is trying to accommodate itself to an increasingly angry public.  That's where we need to focus our work outside of DC, and it's actually the most effective way to help pass partial measures in the meantime.

Public opinion is on our side-- I'd bet that a well-organized door-knocking effort in the districts of wavering Democrats, urging folks to contact their representative to say it's time to end this war now, would generate converts in Congress at a pretty rapid rate. But only if we don't soften our message.  Waverers need to be confronted by constituents who tell them, "If you give Bush more money for this war, then it's your war, too. Don't do it-- vote to stop the war."