Kerry Joins Reid as Co-Sponsor of Feingold Measure to Change Course in Iraq

[kerrygoddess]

John Kerry Joins Reid as Co-Sponsor of Feingold Measure to Change Course in Iraq
April 2nd, 2007 @ 4:41 pm

Today, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that they are introducing new legislation that will “effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces.”

The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced a short time ago that he will cosponsor the legislation introduced by Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to enforce a deadline for the redeployment of US troops. Kerry said in a statement:

“President Bush has once again decided to ignore reality and ignore the will of Congress by pledging to veto a new policy for Iraq,” said Kerry. “In the face of the Administration’s stubborn unwillingness to change course, the Senate has no choice but to force a change of course. Our brave American troops deserve nothing less than a policy that is equal to their sacrifice.

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5567

[wisteria]

1. Interesting especially since it contains the cut off of funds for the war.

I had thought Senator Kerry was not going to support this type of action, maybe I misunderstood. I still have to read what the "narrow exceptions" are though.

[Mass]

2. The PR for the bill is here.

More or less like the previous bill from last year, but it makes clear that the funds will be cut at the deadline except for the same limited missions.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/20070402.html

[beachmom]

3. I could be wrong, but isn't this the "negotiation" stage.

There was always this black spot -- Dems have their position but what happens when Bush takes the money and doesn't change a damned thing. Well, this is the answer -- they're upping the ante, and telling the president what could be coming around the corner if he doesn't play ball.

Still, I'm not yet ready to defend all of this "out there" until I learn more. I'd like to hear Kerry's take on this in more detail. Right now I'm just at the point where I'm so blown away by Reid's boldness to actually DO THIS, I'm just going to enjoy it for a few more days, before I analyze it further.

[Mass]

4. Actually, the bill is largely the previous bill that passed the Senate, but

with a firm deadline and the logical conclusion of the deadline: once the troops are out, they do not come back except for the 3 limited missions that have been in all the Democratic bills calling for withdrawal for the last 2 years, therefore, the money cannot be used for anything else than these 3 missions(I posted Feingold's release post 2, if you have not read it yet).

[ginnyinWI]

5. seems to me that Reid's strategy is

to say to *, "look, if you're going to veto our bill, we'll give you another one that's worse." And then make good on the threat. It's a good way to get repubs on board, and a good way to put pressure on Malaki, whatever the dunderhead is or is not going to do with it.

[Inuca]

6. "we'll give you another one that's worse"

But will they be able to get the votes on this??? Will they still get Smith and Hagel? I suspect Hagel may go along with this, he seems mad as hell and disgusted with the whole thing, I just read the Esquire article about him, quite interesting, and includes among other things the "go sell shoes" clip which is quite something, and when he calls the whole impugning of motives and hiding behind empty slogans "offensive and disgusting" it is a thing of beauty. Will they still get the Nelsons, Landrieus, and the not so few others of the same ilk? If this is voted on and only gets a relatively small number of votes, what will be the implications and the message? I hope that cautious Reid did a lot of backroom talking and arm twisting before adding his name.

[wisteria]

8. I just finished listening to our president reply to the actions of our

Democrats and their amendment. Of course, he is accusing the Dem's of not supporting the troops and has gone so far as to suggest the our soldiers will not be able to come home sooner because they will not have the funding they need to protect themselves and pursue our victory in Iraq.
However, what struck me was when - in answer to a question about the Democrats doing what they were elected to do in November - he said, he was aware of a "group" of people who did not support the war effort and were trying to tell the generals in Iraq how to run the war.
A GROUP OF PEOPLE! No, Mr. President- not a group, but more than half the American People. I think that constitutes more than a group of people. OMG, this man does live in a bubble.

[ginnyinWI]

9. I think he's spinning facts for his own consumption!

He doesn't like the reality he finds, so he goes into denial. A "group of people" indeed! It's the vast majority of this country--isn't it up to at least 70% now?

What kills me is the way he is so sure that "the terrorists are gonna follow us home" if we pull troops out. Huh? First he says that the terrorists used a failed state to operate in (true--they do need a failed state, one he caused in Iraq for example). Then he blithely asserts that they (and Al Qaeda is only a small percentage of the problem in Iraq) will come here and act the same way here--a NON-failed state with heightened security since 9/11. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

[beachmom]

18. Bill Maher once responded to that line aptly:

"As if they can't do both at the same time"

Gee -- you got these al Qaeda types, fighting in Iraq for a time, then they LEAVE Iraq, and go to Europe or America for an operation. Iraq has given them the training, and now they're good to go. Considering the public relations disaster Iraq has become for the U.S., I don't see there being a shortage of Mujahadeen, many who could go wherever they are told to go, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the West.

And the Dem bill provides for counterterrorism. Hmmm . . . I really wish Kerry could counteract this BS -- he speaks better about Iraq and what the Iraq plan is than any other Democrat except maybe Murtha, who also is well spoken on it.

[ginnyinWI]

20. Feingold gave a pretty good rebuttal on KO tonight.

Seems to me, with *'s popularity in the low 30s that people don't believe in what he says anymore. All of his scary warnings are falling on deaf ears. And even the ones who do believe must be bored silly with the same old lines every time. * is a very lame duck if you ask me--and I think the Dems have him on the run.

[rox63]

7. Bob Geiger is giving JK props again

Yay: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3194905

[Inuca]

10. I just had a quick look on Thomas

and the current listed cosponsors are Boxer, Leahy, and Sanders. Reid is not mentioned, neither is Kerry. I suppose it will be updated.

[Mass]

11. The bill has not yet been offered.

The bill you have found was Feingold's previous bill, withdrawing the troops in 6 months.

Feingold and Reid offered yesterday a new bill, with a deadline on March 31rst 2008. This is the one we are talking about in this thread.

Feingold's press release here: http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/20070402.html

[Inuca]

12. Oops!

I did not read it, I just saw the date and assumed this is the one. That's what happens when you try to keep up while doing a bunch of other work stuff online :-). I DO know it it is going to be offered after the recess, I really do, don't penalize me for this (I was grading and taking a short break on DU and Thomas).

[rox63]

13. I just heard that Dodd has also joined on as a cosponsor n/t

[Mass]

14. Dodd's stock is rising by the minute. First, opposing Fox, then this!

[Firespirit]

15. I really, deeply dislike Reid

It's almost at the level of antipathy that I have for SWMNBN. There is a history and it ain't a good one. I feel that he has pushed JK into a corner on this: "you co-sponsor MY bill or I will take your issue away from you entirely."

I'm on the fence about cutting funding. On one hand, I don't think that JK or RF would support a bill that would deprive the troops of necessities. On the other hand, two words: WALTER REED. I would not put it past Bush to defy the law and keep the troops in Iraq in even more deplorable conditions than they currently have. He thinks he is a law unto himself and literally ignores anything that he doesn't like. I have belatedly hopped on the impeachment wagon if we are to accomplish anything lasting in the war before 2009 at the earliest.

But, you know what? This damned war is going to dominate the legislative agenda until it's settled. In the meantime, our own Gulf Coast suffers, pockets of Gulf-like conditions exist everywhere, and the middle class suffers all over the country. So let's end this misguided adventure once and for all.

After all this, I don't think the war is going to end up being JK's signature issue. I really don't. I wish that investigation and corruption could, but if it is, it'll be more along the lines of corporate corruption rather than the Department of inJustice scandal. I want to see him kicking big corpo ass and unraveling the machine piece by piece, and he'll be best able to do this after the war is out of the way.

[Mass]

16. Not sure why you are so upset (and I really do not like Reid either).

First, this bill is not Reid's bill, but Feingold's, and I was extremely surprised to see Reid sign on it. It probably shows the level of desperation he is in, knowing that, a few weeks ago, he was still disagreeing with the notion of deadline. So, having Reid sign on that is a great step in the right direction, whether it is for good or bad reasons.

Secondly, I am not that surprised that Kerry was the first on to co-sponsor this bill. It is the logical end of what Kerry and Feingold have been advocating for one year. If the troops are withdrawn in one year, as both of them have advocated for a while now, the funds are no more needed. All the bill does is that it states that clearly.

[Firespirit]

17. I know -- I'm not upset

I just don't think Bush will follow a law that he doesn't like. I really do think that the jerk would keep the troops in Iraq in even worse conditions (because the money isn't there) rather than ever accept this bill, and the date contained therein, as the law. This is the same person who sent them in without adequate body armor. He doesn't care. Bush probably sees this as a pissing match or a game of chicken -- some sort of frat house stunt, in any case, that is completely immature and dangerous for a man who has the power that he has.

[karynnj]

19. It's not going to be the law

There is no way, even if it passed in the House and Senate that it would not be vetoed or that there are enough votes to override a veto. If there were, there would be enough votes to impeach Bush if he even tried to do as you suggest.

[kerrygoddess]

21. The press release notes

That is similar to Kerry Feingold. It is. It's Feingold's bill, not Reid's and it's the next step in forcing Bush's hand. I was glad that soon after I got unofficial word that JK was sponsoring this and I was getting a post ready, the press release came out. I believe JK wants to get the troops home and ultimately he's not a grandstander. Good for him, he believes in getting the job done.