new conditions for Iraq supplemental

A wise first-grade teacher once told me that when dealing with a child an adult should create two options that are acceptable. When dealing with the Iraq supplemental one option is going to be that President Bush will veto the bill.

The challenge for war opponents is to create a number of alternatives that are acceptable to us and perceived as reasonable by the public. I believe after Bush vetoes three different Iraq supplemental bill it will be difficult for him to blame Democrats politically for the money not being approved.

Below are conditions I would like to see attached to the next Iraq supplemental bill.

Conditions attached to Iraq supplemental

1.The Department of Defense shall provide a list of military facilities, including barracks and other infrastructure to support troops and military hardware, constructed in Iraq that cannot be removed upon the withdrawal of U.S. forces. The DOD shall provide the possible disposition of these facilities upon withdrawal of U.S. forces and an explanation of how these facilities serves U.S. national interests.

2.The Iraqi parliament needs to vote that it supports maintaining U.S. troop levels in Iraq at or about the current level for the next year if the violence continues at or about the current level.

3.When (if) the Iraqi parliament votes for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq, the withdrawal shall be at least 10% complete within 90 days and at least 85% complete within 180 days.

Empowering the Iraqi parliament to end the occupation will be good for a number of reasons.

If the United States starts taking the Iraqi parliament seriously as a sovereign government--as opposed to a colonial legislature--perhaps other countries and the Iraqi people will start taking the legislature more seriously.

If the Iraqi parliament has the power to end the occupation, factions are less likely to boycott the elections. It creates real stakes for participating in the process.

Having the Iraqi parliament vote to continue the occupation will give U.S. forces more legitimacy in pursuing the mission of decreasing lawlessness and violence.

And we should start to have a debate about the extent the U.S. government has quietly implemented a policy of constructing permanent bases.

•  Generally yes,

  ..but how they withdraw is up to our guys on the ground.  Let them strategically and quietly withdraw from Iraw.

  by DrKate on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:12:11 AM PDT

•  Meteor Blades had concerns about this

  I proposed:

  force Iraqi parliament to vote on occupation

  New condition for releasing the money.

  The Iraqi parliament has to vote that it wants to continue the occupation for the next year.

  Republicans have been saying they are for leaving if the Iraqi parliament wants us to leave.

  Let's force the question.

  Meteor Blades responded:

  This is a dangerous strategy for ...

  ...those of us who want out. I think there is a good chance that the parliament would vote for something so mushy that it doesn't amount to "we want the Americans to leave." Such pressure, in other words, could backfire on us badly.

  by Carl Nyberg on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:12:24 AM PDT

  •  iraq parliament has voted on withdrawal

    alternet. wapo link also in the thread.

    by MarketTrustee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:24:15 AM PDT

    •  This would force a new vote

      that would have consequences.

      It's amazing how votes with consequences turn out differently from non-binding votes.

      by Carl Nyberg on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:25:35 AM PDT

  •  Iraqi parliament or a blank check?

    Is this proposal superior to giving Bush a blank check?

    by Carl Nyberg on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:24:24 AM PDT

•  Excellent, Carl

  All are very good suggestions, especially 2. and 3.

  I'd give you a nostalgic "3" if I could, but I can't, so you get a Rec instead.

  by bustacap on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:12:37 AM PDT

  •  "Recommends" are good

    by Carl Nyberg on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:13:41 AM PDT

    •  I prefer Rec's

      to the old style myself,

      And from me you get a rec and I'd tip ya if there was a tip jar :)

      by Wary on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:17:18 AM PDT

•  How does an idea get from dKos to

  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

  by Carl Nyberg on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:13:09 AM PDT

  •  On the wings of rabid lambs. n/t

    by bustacap on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:17:11 AM PDT

•  WOW! I like it!

  Of course, begin treating Iraq as it is an independent soveriegn, nation -state.

  This iwll never fly, sadly, because it is way to rational, logical, and treats the Iraqi's with dignity.

  I think that the Democrats would go for this, but not the Republics one bit!

  Good thoughts though, thanks!

  by Wary on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:13:43 AM PDT

  •  haven't GOPers been saying they'd support leaving

    Iraq if that's the will of the Iraqi parliament?

    by Carl Nyberg on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:23:15 AM PDT

    •  They have indeed said that

      I'd forgotten about that, but knowing Senator McConnell, my Senator who also said that, I trust him not one bit, they'd find some kind of reason to twist it around.

      But good point to be sure, and I know we need to get these suggestions to the Dem leader ship some how some way.

      by Wary on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:30:24 AM PDT

      •  they GOPers may have been insincere when they

        spoke, but this legislation will force them to either renege on their words or join our side.

        by Carl Nyberg on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:31:41 AM PDT

      •  just this sunday past

        McConnell said a couple of times, If the Iraqis vote for us to leave we will. H'd be hard pressed to weasel out he was very definite.

        by buddabelly on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:58:29 AM PDT

        •  I gotta give Mitch McConnell credit

          for helping to inspire me.

          by Carl Nyberg on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:05:13 PM PDT

          •  May his words come back to bite him. n/t

            by buddabelly on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:26:19 PM PDT

•  Well, our "leaders" have betrayed us

  The Dems didn't have the votes in Congress for their version of the supplemental, so they've caved and given Bush what he wanted. They didn't even have all the Dem votes, by a long shot. I'm so disgusted I could just vomit.

  AARRRRGGGGHHHHHHH

  PS:

  A wise first-grade teacher once told me that when dealing with a child an adult should create two options that are acceptable.

  In sales, that's called a "choice close". I like your suggestions...

  by tigerdog on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:15:46 AM PDT

  •  I don't agree with

    That train of thought here amongst not just your comment, but others as well,  that they 'betrayed' us at all.

    I know the Dems have done what they could, they have built a larger and stronger coalition, they have already gotten Bush to veto one bill, but they got it through the Congress.

    Also the Democrats must listen to their constituencies in their respective states, concerning the vote on the Iraqi funding bill, as well as other legislation.

    Right now, it appears the Dems are 'selling out' but believe me, this isn't the last of it at all. I suppose some people will get fed up along the way and Leave, I've already seen one right here do just that today--well, I'm sticking in there and help to rebuild the party--been here all my long life don't see any reason to leve now.

    Thanks for the comments, though, sure helps to know what others are thinking and to share with people what i'm thinking as well.

    by Wary on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:26:41 AM PDT

    •  Oh, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just pissed.

      Blowing off steam. I'm particularly pissed that they let Bush have a clause that allows him to "waive" the benchmarks. Jesus Joseph & Mary, that one just blows my mind.

      Yeah, it's time to regroup and fight on. But I can't help being disappointed in them.

      by tigerdog on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:05:41 PM PDT

•  I'd like to see

  something addressing the planned two month vacation by the Iraqi parliament.  If they go on vacation, they clearly aren't as concerned about stability as they need to be, considering 20 or so US troops die per week.

  by Magster on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:29:29 AM PDT

•  I think money is the overriding influence now.

  People power does not matter. Maybe in time, average people will be able to influence Congress, but right now, money is what talks.

  by jimreyn on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:44:45 AM PDT

•  Good ideas

  and I'm up for trying anything other than caving in to this president.  But we're dealing with a mentality that is not like a normal first grader's mentality.  He wants what he wants when he wants it.  He apparently doesn't care much about his own reputation or legacy anymore, and he surely doesn't care about the Republicans and their election concerns.  At this point, he's got blinders on and will veto anything other than exactly what he wants, because he smells weakness.  

  He smells weakness.

  Democrats standing up with an equally stubborn attitude, and Republicans bailing on him, and resignations, are the only thing that will make him change his mind.  His back has to be up against the wall.  Right now, dems are too concerned about political risks and keeping to their self-imposed deadlines.  They should send him the same bill, or if they can't get their own ranks to go along with that, send him nothing.  Next year the political risks will be even more of a factor.  Now is the time.  They're blowing it.  It's a critical mistake.

  by joanneleon on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:01:32 PM PDT

  •  A cornered animal is a dangerous animal... n/t

    by tigerdog on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:06:54 PM PDT