Skip to main content

View Diary: Iraq accountability: November and March (157 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm Not Giving Up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kid oakland

    I am supporting what the Dem's are attempting in the CNN article.

    That's not the language of "betting the ranch."

    Let's stay on topic here. When I used that phrase I was talking about the option of not funding. You applied it to what Webb said and he was not talking about not funding so please don't attribute what I say to a quote that is not in context to how I used it.

    Now as to 60 day funding - yes that is an option that I have endorsed here in this blog after it became apparent that Bush would veto. That is not ending funding though which I now assume you are not for? Or are you?

    As for the framing issue may I suggest this. Go to PBS.org/newshour and download the interview/debate between SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D) and SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R) and tell me how one can ignore their frames. You can't unless you want to look dumb on TV and stick your fingers in your ears. And let's face it, that is where this battle is being waged - on TV and also in the press.

    Murray did pretty good but Hutchison also did good and she did a great job of re-framing our frames. Face it they are just better at it. To ignore their frames is at our own peril. FYI when I use their frames I only use them here in discussion with like minded people - never when talking to someone of the Right.

    In conclusion I think a 60 day bill would be good if it is needed to keep things going past July when supposedly the money is to run out. But it would be better if we could quickly craft a bill that includes benchmarks with some Repubs - an option that I take you are not fond of because you did not mention it at all.

    The Democratic Party must maintain its unity and stand up for deadlines.

    I think most elected officials in the party think that idea is now dead for the time being. Yeah we could send another deadline/timeline bill and it also would get vetoed. Better to peel off a few repubs now on benchmarks and later on when those benchmarks are not met maybe even more will come our way if for no other reason that to try to protect themselves for '08 - and public opinion may swing further our way. Then if we get enough of them we may be able to craft a veto proof bill and get what we want.

    "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

    by talex on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:51:19 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I heard the last half of that segment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catrina

      and will listen to the whole thing when they put it up. What you are saying is true from what I heard.

      From what I can tell, we both:

      a) take GOP frames seriously
      b) would support the Murtha 2 month tactic (which IS using the power of the purse.)
      c) support Jim Webb's response, which included the line "the President chose not to cash the check"...a very different frame from the one you are using, if you ask me.

      Now, I think this is a productive discussion, but I do think you are artificially hyping my position. ie. How can we basically agree on strategy and rhetoric for the next two months and yet you say, repeatedly that I am calling for "defunding."

      I'm not.  I am for, like Jim Webb and John Murtha, Congress excercising it's authority and responsibilities to bring some oversight to the Iraq war.

      That means putting Bush on a short leash.  That means giving Bush some bench marks. Yes. we agree.  That is oversight.

      It should also mean beginning to make the case to the American public that there IS a deadline looming for Bush and the Iraqi government of March 2008.  Bush and the Iraqis need to meet the benchmarks in that time frame because after that the mission and the funding will change, mandated by Congress and with the force of law. That is, yes, a timeframe. I'm for it. The public is for it.

      That doesn't defund the troops, that directs the President to use the taxpayers money properly and get the job done now. I can easily imagine Reid and Pelosi crafting legislation that would give the President a great deal of operational flexibility and still have the force of law. Hell, you could create a provision for a rolling extension if the President makes the case to Congress...but still keep him on a leash.

      Jim Webb is not going to "defund" the troops. He's going to, like Reid and Pelosi, do his damndest to bring our troops home safe.

      When the tables were turned, the GOP was not afraid to "take it to" the Dems.  I don't think they were looking at the polls.

      I don't think Webb is now.

      k/o: politics and culture

      by kid oakland on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:14:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Think We Are On The Same Page (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kid oakland, Catrina

        I don't disagree with any thing you say here. I do have one caveat though.

        c) support Jim Webb's response, which included the line "the President chose not to cash the check"...a very different frame from the one you are using, if you ask me.

        Yes of course it is a very different frame. I already alluded to that. But that is the point - it is a VERY different frame and one that will not hold up. Here is why. Webb's frame is a temporary frame. It does a good job as a re-frame of todays veto. It tells the people that 'no we did not refuse to fund like Bush says - we did fund - he is the one who refused to fund, he refused to sign the bill tht funds the troops'. Great frame! Problem is that it has no staying power because eventually the need for funds will trump that frame and it will be old news. That is where a benchmark bill or a Murtha bill or maybe even better a combo of the two come in.

        So my point is some frames like Webb's are situational frames and have a short life. And when up against a 'hard' frame that will not go away - like "congress needs to fund the troops" - it pales in comparison. Bush knows that and that is why he is able to play this game. And if he plays his card right he will be able to play it bill after bill after bill. I recognized this long ago and even stated so on this site. I really do not know what we can do other than gather a veto proof majority to beat him at that game. Yes we can do many of the things you suggest and I agree with but ultimately if he stays stubborn he will get the money. Even public opinion does not matter to him - we know that and we've seen it for 6 years now. That is why we must gather a veto proof majority. Only that will give us the trump card.

        As for "artificially hyping my position" - mea culpa. I read your diary too fast and did not quite grasp all that you said. So I apologize for that and now understand that by 'using the purse' you mean as with what Murtha suggests or something similar. I'm all in with that.

        Good conversation. Probably the best I have had here in years now. I see that this started over at Talk Left. I'll have to start going over there because this is the type of discussion that interests me and one does not see much of them here any more.

        Mow let's go get them!

        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

        by talex on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:07:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (120)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (22)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site