Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama to reboot his Iraq policy/rhetoric on Wednesday (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Like what? We need 10 Republican votes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Better Days, ChiGirl88

    in order to overcome the filibuster.  Um, a presidential candidate, whose audience is Democratic primary voters, is going to have limited influence on those Republicans.

    I do agree that he can help out with the rhetoric, which will help our cause, get in the media, and so on.  But as far as "inside the Senate", which actually is what matters for real action, don't look for presidential candidates to be at the forefront.  I also will add that they don't have the time to do the careful negotiations necessary because they're running for president.

    •  We don't need ten Republicans to (8+ / 0-)

      cut-off funding.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:19:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you are for just not sending a bill a la (6+ / 0-)

        Kucinnich?  That's the only way you cut off funding, without those Republican votes.  Honestly, I am opposed to a radical and sudden cutoff of funding without a policy change.  The funding cutoff approach I support is Reid/Feingold, which sets a timetable for withdrawal, and only cuts off funding after the deadline is reached.  That needs 10 R votes to pass, 17 to overturn Bush.  What are the chances that is going to happen?  

        Don't get me wrong -- I hope the presidentials vote against the funding again as well as good liberals like Kerry and Feingold.  But as far as the entire Senate goes, there is no support for "just not sending a bill", and it would not end the Iraq War right.

        •  If it comes to that, yes. (6+ / 0-)

          Enough is enough.  Either we go forward on withdrawal or we slam on the damn brakes.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:32:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Don't send another dime. This takes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          assyrian64, jethropalerobber

          41 votes in the Senate, and zero in the House.  They have clearly shown they will not craft a change in policy until forced.

          •  Only a small percentage of the American people (4+ / 0-)

            support that approach.  And I don't either.  If you look back at the Vietnam days, the Congress had the votes to cut off funding by deadline.  We don't.  Cutting off funding by not sending a bill (which is immediate, without any warning to military planners or the Iraqi government or individual Iraqis who have been working with Americans at their peril), when there is little support for that approach by the people and the members of Congress is a bad idea.

            •  Bush is asking for an additional $50 (5+ / 0-)

              Billion in addition to the budgeted $147 Billion.

              There is absolutely, positively no reason to give him that extra $50 Billion.

              "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

              by Geekesque on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:39:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think Cong. Joe Sestak of PA can tell (6+ / 0-)

                us if that's true.  Since he was a military planner he will have the insight as to whether that funding is needed now.  He voted for the funding last time, because he said a shortfall was going to happen very soon.  I know I'm not being popular around here for this opinion, but I think we need to think about this.  I want to end this war; I want to withdraw; but I am wondering if it is possible and reasonable to do so in a sudden way.

                •  I agree with you beachmom (5+ / 0-)

                  fwiw.

                  Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

                  by bumblebums on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:47:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  From the WaPo: (4+ / 0-)

                  President Bush plans to ask Congress next month for up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq, a White House official said yesterday, a move that appears to reflect increasing administration confidence that it can fend off congressional calls for a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces.

                  The request -- which would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- is expected to be announced after congressional hearings scheduled for mid-September featuring the two top U.S. officials in Iraq. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker will assess the state of the war and the effect of the new strategy the U.S. military has pursued this year.

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                  Democrats should absolutely filibuster that $50 Billion in surge money.

                  "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                  by Geekesque on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:52:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Where are you getting your numbers (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nasarius, Geekesque

              on "the American people."  I am aware that congress has no guts, but as recently as January 53% (about the middle of the story) of Americans were willing to cut off funding to prevent the "surge".

              Clearly, framing the issue correctly is critical.  But cutting off funding is the. only. way. to. end. the. war...until January 2009.

              •  It's easy to fall into that camp (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wystler, beachmom, a night owl

                without examining the logistics of this funding, of which frankly, I have no clue. When someone like Sestak expresses extreme concern for executing a withdrawal intelligently, safely and as quickly as possible without imperiling our people, I have no choice but to listen.

                Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

                by bumblebums on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:57:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  With funds cut off, the Republicans could (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  assyrian64, MarketTrustee

                  a) come to the table and work out how and when the troops get home.

                  or

                  b) what?  Just leave them there, to make a point?  And stop sending food?

                  I think it's a GOP meme we've bought into.  When funding is cut off, then the negotiations for logistics of the end begin.

                  •  that's one bold-assed game of chicken (4+ / 0-)

                    you really ready to trust the MSM coverage on that? i ask because they hold sway with public opinion ...

                    it's about biconceptualism ... Obama08

                    by wystler on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:47:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Government shut down 1995 (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ChiGirl88, goffnews, a night owl

                    Sorry, I am not willing to play chicken with a crazy president worried about his "legacy".  When the Republicans used hardball tactics over a budget fight in '95 (which had a lot less at stake than a war), President Clinton, who had suffered a horrible defeat for Dems in the '94 midterm elections, came out the victor.

                    I think that's great that you are thinking creatively on this, but I am sure the Dems entertained this approach, and deemed it not doable.

                  •  yep. (b) is down and dirty powerball (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    goffnews, Involuntary Exile

                    that threatens to discredits senate convention. they're scared shitless bush admin would do exactly that -- declare war on US troops -- as if DoD had zero money and NO CREDIT LIMIT to draw down troop level if only to dec 2006.  

                    that means, simply, blow munitions at evacuated bases, board personnel on planes and fly 'em to frickin germany, as if that were all the gas money DoD has on hand, as if contractors could pay their own way, as if the admin didn't need to buy time anyway to plot the next nefarious move of the shell game.

                    the unitary asshole admin has options buried in the FY2007-FY2008 budget wish lists, independent of supplemental appropriations, if it gives a damn about US military lives.

                    Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

                    by MarketTrustee on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:55:25 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  The surge, not the war. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aexia, Involuntary Exile

                This article is from May:

                http://www.cnn.com/...

                Poll: 57 percent support a war funding bill with a withdrawal timetable
                • A majority, 60 percent, oppose cutting off funds to end Iraq war

                The American people support the Democrats' plan for a timetable for withdrawal.  They might consider supporting the Reid/Feingold amendment which cut off funding after the deadline is reached (that scenario was not polled).  But 60% oppose cutting off funding.

                Kennedy, back in January, brought up a bill that would not allow funding for the surge.  Unfortunately, it died.  Thing is, now that the surge has been underway, how do you separate surge from normal funding?  You can't.

                •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  beachmom

                  I'm not sure "60% opposed" quite justifies your statement "only a small percentage of the American people support that approach", but I appreciate the numbers.  And I do appreciate your point of view.

                  •  Likewise. I just think we need to talk about (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    goffnews

                    this frankly.  It makes us better debating the Republicans and framing our issues.  I think this war is awful, and needs to end.  I guess I just am against blaming the Democrats for not ending it when it's a 50/50 split in the Senate (since Lieberman sides with Bush on Iraq).  But the impatience and pressure from others like you here is good, too.  We're all on the same team, just trying to figure this out.

            •  That's because Nixon was willing to sign (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Aexia

              such a bill (although he wasn't exactly in favor of it).

              He didn't veto

              Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

              by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:17:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  How can something (0+ / 0-)

          this wrong be ended 'right'. Playing along and running out the clock in hopes that they win big in 08 is not right at all. The politics involved are so transparently bogus that outside the DC beltway all this will do is piss off the voters.

          "And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Bob Dylan

          by shaharazade on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:28:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because of our regional interests. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a night owl

            I'd love to snap my fingers and make our dependence on foreign oil disappear tomorrow, but it's not going to.  The Middle East is a region vital to our interests.  You do know that even when we leave Iraq, we're not going to be leaving the M.E.  When I say "right", I am talking about the diplomatic situation in the M.E., and to set that deadline so people know what is happening.  And "right", doesn't mean good.  It means the best way we can end our involvement in this war.

            A sudden cutoff of funding does not figure in these concerns.

      •  But we would need 10 Republicans (0+ / 0-)

        to override the all-but-certain presidential veto of such a bill.

      •  you only need 41 Dems to filibuster. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        assyrian64, JohnB47, annefrank

        correct.

        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

        by Salo on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:44:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, we just need to... (0+ / 0-)
      keep sending the same bill.  Over and over again.  Until the Republicans realize that they aren't going to get anything else and unless they pass the bill the troops will not be funded.  The onus is upon them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site