MyDD :: Iraq Supplemental Passes House

by Baldrick on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:29:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't understand why this all isn't a GREAT argument for why you should vote for a Democrat.

This vote proves that a Republican president will continue this war indefinitely, even if the majority of the public doesn't want it, and even if the Democrats in Congress fight to end it. At the end of the day, there's too much power tied up in the presidency and you simply can't count on the will of the public or of individual people in Congress to beat that.

Which means the only sure way to end this mess, and ensure we don't get stuck in another one just like it, is to ensure that the person at the top is rational and committed to ending the war so we're not stuck trying to mobilize 300 people in Congress.

by Master Jack on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:40:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I missed this part:

even if the Democrats in Congress fight to end it.

It looks to me like 200-plus Democrats just voted to keep this war going in all its raging glory.

I'm sorry, I'm just feeling used right now. All the good, incremental work the Democrats seemed to be doing before today was just rendered meaningless by this complete sham of a funding bill. As if that was the plan all along.

I won't restate the myriad other ways the Democrats could have effectively pulled the plug on this war -- they're well-documented here and elsewhere. But the fact is that the Democrats were voted in to put a check on Bush -- a power completely available to them, if one reads the Constitution -- and proceeded to punt it away.

If I get asked "If the Democrats don't stand up to Bush, why should I believe they'll stand up to Osama?" I can't say I've got a good answer.

by Baldrick on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look, you don't think they fought enough, fine.

But they did fight, and it's ridiculous to say they didn't. If a Democrat were president this war would be over over over by now (and wouldn't have been started in the first place). If you can't use that to make a case for a Democratic president, then I don't know what to say.

Which makes me think that you aren't really asking how to persuade someone to vote for a Democrat; you're using a rhetorical trick to try and give voice to your anger.

Which is fine, but for all the obsession with "frames" here, I would think people would be wary of using "Naderite frames" that claim there's no difference between voting for Democrats and the GOP.

by Master Jack on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:05:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They fought for awhile. And they seemed to be holding together and making progress. It actually looked real for a few weeks.

And then, they quit. Just like that. They gave up. The capitulation was so abrupt and complete that it cast serious doubts about the sincerity of their previous efforts to hold Bush accountable. That's why I feel used and manipulated.

And their messaging was just atrocious. There was NO effort to persuade the public that they were right and Bush was wrong. They let the Republicans outflank them rhetorically from the get-go. They didn't seem to remotely understand the value of setting the terms of the debate, despite getting thumped by the Republicans in this department for over a decade.

But I guess I can always point to the Democrats' blazing success in anti-corruption legislation and lobbying reform when drawing up a contrast between the parties. Has Condi gotten back to them yet about that subpoena?

Hoodwinked. (none / 0)

The option to defund the occupation in Iraq by March 2009 was never on the Democrats' agenda. Here's why.

During the height of the House Secret Trade Deal, the House negotiated and passed the FY-2008 Defense bill (National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 1585) by 397 to 27 on May 17th, and sent it to the Senate where it sits today.

In that bill, the House approved $142 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan for 12 months.

Think about that for a minute.

In other words, Bush's initial blank check was already in the mail while the House played timetable-tag with the $100+ billion Supplement Appropriations to bridge the gap from July through September.

During Pelosi's capitulation announcement, she said she "was not likely to vote for something that doesn't have a timetable or a goal of coming home." Yet, the FY-08 Defense bill she passed doesn't have a timetable or a goal for coming home, either.

During Reid's capitulation announcement, he said he would have another chance to hold Bush accountable by using the Defense appropriations in September. Just how would he find the votes to do that when the bill already contains full funding through 2008?

So, what's going on here?

Robert Naiman blogging at Just Foreign Policy perceives two troubling concerns:

First: why is the overall funding level set in stone? The supplemental is purportedly to cover the period until September 30, the end of the fiscal year. Even if one accepted the idea of no limitation of the war before September 30, why is $100 billion necessary for this purpose? This has never been explained. If $100 billion were truly necessary for this purpose, that would mean that the rate of war spending was doubling compared to last year. A far more plausible explanation is that the supplemental is not intended to carry the war to September 30, but well beyond that. If the aim of the Congressional leadership is to revisit the issue in the fall, why provide funding well beyond that?

Second: on May 17 the House passed the defense authorization for 2008, "The bill includes $142 billion in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan," but "does not require troop withdrawals or place restrictions on the war," AP reported. If the intent of the House leadership on the FY 2008 authorization is that passage on May 17 was the last word on the matter, it's hard to reconcile that with a plan of revisiting the issue of the war in the fall.

If the House leadership is absolutely determined not to fight further for any restriction on the war in this round, and cannot be shaken from this position, then the the questions of the funding level and the 2008 authorization should be immediately revisited. Regarding the latter, while the 2008 defense authorization has passed the House, it hasn't passed the Senate, and unless the Senate passes it in exactly the same form - an unlikely prospect - the House can have another bite at the apple.

The next byte might be deadly if the Dems try to use the Defense bill to end the "Unitary Executive's" adventure in Iraq. However, if the Senate can strip the $142 billion from the Defense bill, they would have a chance to place language in a stand-alone bill terminating the occupation.

by fafnir on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:27:49 PM EST

by Silent sound on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:43:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's the defense authorization, not the appropriation. My understanding is that an appropriation is the kind of thing that was voted on today, but an authorization is a noncontroversial thing which is quite different and should not be expected to either be taken as seriously or have the same scope or goals, since it's almost more of a bookkeeping procedure. Please correct me if I'm wrong I think it would be considered quite weird if things like timetables or minimum wage legislation were affixed to a defense authorization.

by fafnir on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two different bills, same thing. An appropriation is money authorized by Congress.

by Mimikatz on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two different bills. One authorizes the program, and the other appropriates the money to pay for it. Sometimes the first is jsut for show. Remember the fence bill last year? Congress authorized spending billions on a fence at the Mexico border, but never actually appropriated the money for it. There will be a second bite.

by fafnir on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I meant by two different bills is that the May 17 bill is one of the 13 mandatory fiscal appropriations; it authorizes and provides funding - about $600 billion -for DoD. The money and the authorization are together.

The second one (actually two bills that will be joined together when it is returned to the House) being voted on today is the capitulation bill.

Re: Open Thread (none / 0)

Pray to God our Democratic senators aren't the same type of cowards our House Dem's are.

Who do we have willing to stand up and fillibuster this bill to hell? I think I have a short list of probably/hopefully members. Question marks mean I don't know but I'd hope so.

So far - Kerry, Feingold, Byrd, Dodd, Biden - are or probably are voting no/would be willing to fillibuster it - Anybody else?

Hopefully leaders like - Reid, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Hagel -

Last, just hopefully everyone votes no if the fillibuster fails, which if it fails, I think we're screwed.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:28:51 PM EST

Re: Open Thread (none / 0)

The Senate vote should be interesting.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Silent sound on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:30:08 PM EST

When's the Senate vote?

by Mimikatz on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Over. 80 votes for the bill. Obama and Clinton voted no, knowing it would make no difference.

Re: Iraq Supplemental Passes House (3.00 / 1)

If the "key rule vote" was so terrible for Democrats, how come every Republican voted no?

If a no vote would have resulted in denial of the war funding, how come every Republican voted no?

Folks like Sirota seem to be making a big deal out of the rule vote as a way of adding even more Democrats to our enemies list.

If the only progressive, anti-war position was to oppose the rule vote, what do you say to Barbara Lee, who voted yes? Is she not anti-war enough for your tastes? Do we need to primary her from the left?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:34:18 PM EST

by dblhelix on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:43:23 PM EST

yes 68
no 11

passes in senate

by dblhelix on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:44:05 PM EST

still in progress ... 70 yes, 11 no

by Silent sound on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:45:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eleven?

by dblhelix on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:50:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

80-14 now ...

not much better.

by Silent sound on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:59:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's pretty amazing.

When I saw the house roll call, my first thought was to notice that the bill passed two votes short of a veto-proof majority.

Not only is the Senate already well over the veto-proof majority point, but it's looking like by the time the smoke clears a majority of Senate Democrats will have voted for the bill.

Re: Iraq Supplemental Passes House (3.00 / 2)

I think the difference is that the Senate is voting on the bill as a whole. So I'd imagine some Senators said "well, this is going to pass anyway, so I might as well not go on record against the minimum wage, Katrina relief, blah blah blah."

I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone, but I have to think this was part of what was going on. Consider that the Feingold amendment, to end the war completely, got 29 votes last week. No way were there only 14 Senators opposed to the war funding in this bill today.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:07:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Djneedle83 on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:45:26 PM EST

Obama voted no....

Clinton voted no...

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

good for both Obama and Hillary, tough day for Edwards as he hoped one of them would fall for the trap.

by nevadadem on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:49:48 PM EST

by Silent sound on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:54:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's in the long run good for Obama and Hillary, certainly, but if anything I think this is far better for Edwards and Dodd-- they can claim to have actually lead on this issue and stood up publicly for their stances, whereas Obama and Clinton just hid from the press for 24 hours then snuck in to the Senate floor and dropped their vote with, so far, no comment.

So far in the primary campaign there's been this pattern where Edwards is ahead of Obama and Obama is ahead of Clinton on virtually every issue. Usually the amount by which Edwards is ahead is not significant-- usually there's like a 48 hour lagtime-- but the pattern is still holding. So far nobody really seems to be noticing this except blogs like this one, which run on Internet Time and so actually have an attention span quick enough to notice the 48-hour delay before the stance Edwards picked up on first is adopted elsewhere. But if this pattern holds for long enough, eventually the average person is going to have opportunity to notice as well.

And yes, I'm saying this as an Obama supporter personally.

Re: Iraq Supplemental Passes House (3.00 / 1)

I have a hard time believing that many people care that much about this. If Edwards can effectively spin it as "they wouldn't have done this if not for me" I guess, but I just don't think people care that much about the timeframe of the candidates reaching identical decisions, especially if it's only a day or two.

I have a feeling only the blogs are paying attention because only the blogs operate in a framework where it even matters.

by Baldrick on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iraq Supplemental Passes House (none / 0)

I've watched the Senate alot and Obama always votes towards the end. He never goes early. He waits for the crush to die down.
I think he lingered in the front talking to see if Clinton would vote first. I think he wanted to force her hand and not vote until after her.
but, she played safe and hid under the cover of Obama so she could continue to blur the lines and claim they vote the same.
What a **. It's like she is giving a major speech on the same day as Obama gives his health care policy speech just to steal his coverage knowing the msm will run to cover whatever nonsense comes out of her mouth and the spin it so she seems so wonderful

by vwcat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:59:29 PM EST

by Kingstongirl on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you know how silly that sounds? Does Hillary really need the guidance of a two year Senator. You yourself says that Obama never votes early, maybe because he is waiting to see which way the wind is blowing.

You wrote that the wanted to force her hand. If he is all that, such a visionary, what does it matter what Hillary does. Who really has been hiding out from the tough votes. Obama was absent while Hillary was voting in favor of importing cheaper drugs. He was recently absent when Hillary voted in favor of the Dorgan amendment to nix to guest worker provision in the immigration bill. Yes it failed, but she was willing to put her vote on the record. Has he released his health care plan yet?

Every time I've heard Obama oppose or support a bill or provision, he usually quotes someone else who also opposed or supported the bill. Case and point the Feingold Amendment. In the initial go round, he was opposed to it because he was being responsible and Jim Webb also opposed it.

AP - Dem Activists Oppose Troop Needs (3.00 / 1)

The AP article on the Iraq Supplemental vote includes this outrageous misstatement of the tension between Democratic activists and the troops (emphasis mine):

That left Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois publicly uncommitted in the hours leading to the vote, two leading White House rivals tugged in one direction by the needs of 165,000 U.S. troops -- and in another by party activists demanding rejection of the legislation.

Democratic Party activists were certainly not pulling Democratic legislators in a direction contrary to the interests of the troops. The author of the report, DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent swallowed the Republican spin whole. Unfortunately that spin is a lie.

I've got to wonder if David Espo is comfortable putting his name to Republican lies. If not, I'd suggest he dig a little deeper next time he decides to editorialize in the middle of a news report.

by Curt Matlock on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:03:43 PM EST

Re: AP - Dem Activists Oppose Troop Needs (none / 0)

Look, I understand that the media framing is annoying, but from the perspective of Clinton, say, think about it like this:

We all understand that failure to pass any appropriations will not cause Bush to end the war. So, even if it's entirely his fault it is a knowable consequence of not appropriating any money.

Part of what we like about the Democratic candidates is that they don't operate on the "I'm not responsible for eminently predictable terrible consequences of my actions" philosophy that characterizes Bush and his cronies.

The Democrats are grown ups, and at some point that does require at least an admission that you have to be the one to "cave" because your adversary will continue to be bullheaded and arrogantly put others at risk.

Now, today was not the day to do so, and it's represented in their votes, thankfully, but you can't pretend it's an entirely irrelevant calculation. Like it or not, Bush is president and we can't just feel satisfied with ideological purity if that means refusing to pay attention to what the lunatic-in-chief might do in response.

As I said, I think passing this bill was terrible, and I'm glad at least a few stood against it, but let's also recognize that the forces at work make it a tough (if not ultimately that difficult) decision.

by Baldrick on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AP - Dem Activists Oppose Troop Needs (none / 0)

I'm not sure why you are addressing this to me. I merely point out that the AP used the Republican spin that Democratic activists are anti-troop. My own thoughts on the vote on the Iraq Supplemental should not be assumed from my choice to highlight that spin. Personally, I agree that the pulling of hair on the part of some is an overreaction to this setback.

by Curt Matlock on Fri May 25, 2007 at 07:51:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Master Jack on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:04:32 PM EST

Riffing a bit off Chris's post a little below...

When news came a couple of days ago that the Democrats were going to roll over and play dead on Iraq, I gave some thought to stepping down from my local Central Committee. I'd get some minor local media coverage, get to say my piece about how worthless the Democratic leadership is, and get some satisfaction for a couple of days.

But my thought process was similar to Chris's in his post -- he articulated it a lot better than I possibly could, but the feeling is the same. If I quit, they win. The coward wing of the Democratic Party gets to run the show for good. If I leave, I don't get to effect change, I don't get to do anything but sit home and bitch.

So I'm staying and redoubling my efforts to rid the party of the cowards. When I'm in a position to recruit local candidates, I know what to ask. I'll be able to tell the Democrats from the cowards.

And little be little, we'll make America a two-party state again.

My one concern is that the Democrats have blown the 2008 election through this betrayal of the voters. Who knows; maybe that was the idea.

Hey, what did Rep. Slaughter say earlier? (none / 0)

I just want to stress the point that the vote on the actual Iraq spending amendment will only pass (if it does) because of Republican votes. It is going to face strong opposition from many, many Democrats - we'll see how many soon, and all the votes will be made available.

Well, so much for that I guess...

by Silent sound on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:08:33 PM EST

Re: Hey, what did Rep. Slaughter say earlier? (none / 0)

To reply to my own post: I didn't see this post until after I'd said what I just said above. That changes the dynamic a bit, so I guess it isn't quite fair to expect Slaughter's comment to apply to the Senate considering she's in the House...

Still, Slaughter was not as I remember the only significant person to make the "Republican bill and will pass with Republican votes" comment over the last 48 hours...

by Silent sound on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Quote (none / 0)

Message from Obama on Twitter. BarackObama In DC voting No... "We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path." 9 minutes ago

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:15:55 PM EST

Dodd (none / 0)

Message from Dodd. chrisdodd STAFF: Senator Dodd voted against the Iraq supplemental bill 15 minutes ago

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Master Jack on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:22:24 PM EST

A few more thoughts...

I couldn't believe some of the comments that were coming out of some of these "Democratic" congressmen. Jim Moran gets the Art Garfunkel Award for extreme wimpiness. How did this weak, cowardly man ever get elected to anything?

The Democrats caved to Bush in the 2002 war vote. Of course, circumstances were different then: America was out for blood after 9/11, the administration's lies about Iraq had not been publicly exposed yet to any significant extent (though there were skeptics), the Democrats didn't control Congress, and one could construct a rational, political-calculation argument that supported the AUMF.

The political calculations, of course, blew up in the Democrats' faces. Surely they wouldn't make such a colossal misjudgment again. Especially when, four and a half years later, the war and the president who started it are deeply unpopular, the Democrats "control" Congress, the previous appeasement move had failed miserably electorally, and we know a lot more about how deceptive the Bushies were about the war runup.

But the Democrats went out and just succumbed, again. Geez, just typing that out made me pissed off all over again. Is there something fundamentally broken in our system of government?

I don't know. "Flaming cowards" just seems too weak, and doesn't do justice to the degree of capitulation here. We're talking about 80 senators who, in a perfect world, should have never held a job beyond burger-flipper. We're talking about "Democrats" who, tasked by the public to end the war and still on probation in the eyes of the public, chose to moon said public and fire off a barrage of turds.

Osama bin Laden has won. Everything.

by aiko on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:23:25 PM EST

I am just glad its over.

by Master Jack on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It IS over. This is the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.

No, I'm not being a doomsayer. Think about it: if the Democrats continue to follow the DLC path to capitulation -- and they've already coughed up their leverage in THE most important issue of our time -- the party will get destroyed in 2008. It'll make 2002 look like a small ripple in a pond. There was FAR less excuse for caving to Bush this time around.

Either the Democrats begin to act in the public interest, or they get killed next year. It's that simple.

If they pursue the former, it will be the long-overdue and desperately-needed departure from DLC-itis that will rescue the party. If it's the latter, the party will essentially cease to exist as a viable political entity, and a new one -- perhaps under a new name -- will take its place.

Either way, it's a change.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

I think it's silly to harp on the fact that Clinton and Obama waited until the end to vote. Everyone knew this was going to pass by a wide margin. It ended up getting 80 votes. There's absolutely no way they were playing "wait and see."

On the other hand, it's a completely fair point to note that neither of them were willing to go on record before the vote, to make a loud and proud statement as to why they thought no was the right vote. To me, that suggests that they really didn't learn anything from 2004, from Kerry's fiasco in trying to explain his no vote on the $87 billion supplemental for war funding.

None of us are stupid. We all know that Clinton and Obama had no choice but to vote no if they wanted to win the Democratic primary. So they passed this test of loyalty, good for them. But if they really wanted to vote yes in their hearts - and I'm not going to play mind reader and answer that one way or the other - it doesn't matter, because they're on record now. They need to have a justification worked out and they can't be bashful about explaining it, because they're going to wind up looking just like Kerry if they try to have it both ways.

I hope both of them are savvier politicians than Kerry was, but the refusal to take a position before the vote isn't a good sign. There's no hiding from this one, folks.

by Steve M on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:23:53 PM EST

by Master Jack on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:28:18 PM EST

And a bit more. I'm in vent mode...

Does this bill now mean that any attempts to investigate the deceptions involved in the runup to the war are stillborn? With this no-strings funding bill, the Democrats have essentially legitimized the war.

And there are about a hundred thousand Democrats across the country, some quite well-known and respected, who were screaming three months ago about the need to get ahead of the Republicans in the war debate and rhetoric and about the importance of shaping perceptions. None of them were listened to. It's the same crap every time. The Republicans set the frame, and the Democrats fall right in. Always. After this happens for the 500th time, one begins to wonder if it's intentional.

Senate Honor Roll (none / 0)

roll call

NAYs ---14
Boxer (D-CA)
Burr (R-NC)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Obama (D-IL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

by WVaBlue on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:30:25 PM EST