Any CUT-OFF of Iraq funding MUST be PRECEDED by a clear plan for WITHDRAWAL

[bigtree]

February 28, 2007


I don't think there is a majority in the House for a complete cut-off of Iraq funding - for a 'no' vote on the pending Iraq supplemental Bush has presented to Congress in his budget request. I don't think there's anything Speaker Pelosi can or could do to make that majority vote happen. There's never been enough support in our own party for a simple majority vote in the House rejecting the Iraq supplementals and there aren't enough now.

That's why there's an effort by Murtha and others to attach conditions to Bush's Iraq request, but that would effectively make it a Democratic bill. House Democrats like Lynne Woosley have worried aloud that such a move would make Democrats responsible for the outcome in Iraq without having any control at all over what Bush does with the troops left in the field.

I've never been a fan of a complete funding cut-off because it has the appearance of squeezing the troops to get at the president. But, I'm not comfortable with the 'conditions' approach that Murtha is advocating because of the Woosley scenario and because it would still leave money for Bush to continue as he wants in Iraq.

What I would like to see first is an effort by the House to pass a withdrawal plan which could be funded by the appropriations bill that Murtha is determined to report out to the House. That would make any conditions he manages to attach to the appropriation mesh with the funds presumably needed to keep the troops safe and secure as we pull them out.

I've heard the arguments that there is plenty of money in Iraq without giving up more - that these appropriations are mainly for future action as the effect of the money won't be felt for months after they are appropriated. I'm not convinced, however, that such a cut-off could be successfully defended in the media and elsewhere by Democrats pointing to 'money in the pipeline'. I think such a move would be reported every day as a shortchanging of the troops and the cause of every shortage to the troops that Bush is actually responsible for. We know differently, but it would seem almost impossible to sustain that position politically.

Democrats in Congress are corralled by the strident wishes of the ones who elected them to stop Bush in Iraq and by the political realities of sustaining a legislative rebuke in either house. There presently is no simple majority in either house which would vote for a complete funding cut-off. There is no simple majority in the House which would just vote down Bush's new Iraq supplemental flat. Despite all of the venom directed toward Speaker Pelosi, I'm sure she can count votes as well as we can from the outside. She knows she doesn't have support in her own party for the politically dangerous course of a complete funding cut-off.

Support for such a cut-off move by the House leader would be a political suicide effort that would generate echoes of Democrats abandoning the troops which would reverberate well past the next election cycle. It's more than the prospect of electing Democrats that gives pause to the Speaker, its the prospect of the party being subjected to the shorthand attack of pulling money from the troops in the field which makes that option a non-starter. It's just not a sustainable position.

Besides, anything Congress ultimately does on Iraq will be subject to the disregard of Bush. If there is money in the pipeline as Kucinich and others have asserted then Bush will certainly use those funds to continue his occupation, no matter how much the troops suffer. He'll just turn and blame the Democrats for blocking funds.

There has to be a clear mandate from Congress - a clear plan for withdrawal - before there can be any direction of Bush through funding. Those funds allocated must be clearly tied to a withdrawal, making any move Bush makes to use that funding outside of the congressionally mandated withdrawal a direct rebuke of congressional will. It's not enough to just pull the funds and expect Bush to bend. There must be a clear withdrawal plan which is directly tied to the appropriations bill, whether it's in the supplemental or in the defense appropriations as a whole for Democrats to effect something more than chasing Bush's coattails.

[zeemike]

1. I can't believe how easy it was to convince the progressives

That cutting the funding for the war some how puts troops in harms way.
That is all bullshit used to continue the war.
If the congress today cut all funding to the war the first thing that would happen is the general in charge of those troops would tell them to pack up there gear and prepare to return to there base in the US.
No general in his right mind would follow any order to stay the course with no supplies to defend his troops and keep them safe.
It is just an excuse not to act.

[bigtree]

8. I don't think they believe that at all

They are well aware that the political groundwork isn't there to cover any action which can be interpreted by the opposition as pulling funds out from the troops in the field. If we accept the argument of those calling for an immediate withdrawal in Congress, there's enough money for Bush to continue and blame Democrats for any hazard which might occur that he can blame on lack of support. That's why any funding cut-off needs to be buttressed by a clear plan for withdrawal. It's not an excuse that the votes aren't there for a complete cut-off, it's a reality.

[mike_c]

2. it is not up to congress to plan troop movements....

That is the commander-in-chief's and the joint chiefs' job-- or more properly the theater command's job in this case, I suppose. Congress' job is to authorize and pay for war-- or withdraw authorization and funding. The withdrawal plan is the pentagon's job. If they don't already have a withdrawal plan then they are criminally negligent. Count on it-- if Congress cuts the funds and the authorization, the military will find a way to withdraw.

[bigtree]

10. they absolutely have to take down the original resolution for their opposition to stick

in that way, if he insists on continuing, Bush will be isolated and can be properly held to account for ignoring the will of Congress, as well as the American people. Otherwise, he's free to direct the troops any way he pleases, with impunity.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. You'd think all those geniuses in the Pentagon could figure out a way to get the troops home.

The world's best funded military should be able to scrape together enough bucks to rent or borrow enough planes and ships to load the troops on. Even considering their general incompetence and inability to adjust to change.

I have more faith in them to move troops than I have in politicians to actually do something to end the war..like defund the monster.

[bigtree]

6. I think Bush would just shuffle generals

like he did to weasel out of the results of the election. He still has the ability to command these troops, and if Kucinich and Feingold are right, there's still enough money for him to continue anyway. We need a clear withdrawal plan from Congress, even if it's vetoed, before we talk about yanking funds because Bush can just claim as he did after the non-binding bill that Congress hasn't directed him away from his original obligations under the original resolution.

Bush won't be brought down by withholding the latest appropriation. He will only be brought down politically. Even impeachment is a political process which isn't subject to clear logic or due process of law. If we fudge the politics we will squander our chance to take advantage of the politics which carried our party to a position to do anything at all.

[Jcrowley]

4. Smokescreen

These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan:

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

http://kucinich.us/node/1780

It's all nonsense and political gibberish used for cover to continue the occupation. In short they are lying their asses off to continue a War Crime. Do understand that clearly. And do remember the Iraqi children who are getting slaughtered. US troops have zero right to be there or any of the other 136 countries they are in. Zero.

[bigtree]

5. I don't need reminding that 'Iraqi children are getting slaughtered'

I actually like the Kucinich plan. But there's a disconnect between what the American people say in majorities they want - which is pretty much in line with the Kucinich plan - and what happens when the issue meets the steady drumbeat of the opposition. I see so many posts and articles calling legislators cowards for refusing to support a complete cut-off of funding, much like what is in the Kucinich plan, but I'm not convinced that the same public majority who wants a withdrawal will have enough insight to be able to separate administration and congressional rhetoric from whatever the reality of the funding is.

There's plenty of evidence that the response to such an arbitrary cut-off would be blistering. There just aren't enough legislators willing to run that gauntlet. I'd like to see the Kucinich plan gain momentum. It would help get the message out there that we've already spent enough.

The problem I see with the other plans which don't call for an immediate withdrawal is that they still leave room for some 'mission' against the 'Iraqi al-Qaeda' in al-Anbar, and still talk of some salvaging of the beleaguered Maliki regime. That's just an invitation for Bush to continue his occupation. But, these other 'phased' withdrawal plans are the ones which will likely get the most support in in both houses.

Those arguing that a cut-off of funds would hurt the troops may well be talking political gibberish, but the view that Kucinich is promoting that there's already enough money in the pipeline hasn't yet achieved the political potency of the opposition's cry that the troops would suffer. Many believe that Bush would deliberately hang the troops out just to make the political point that the Democrat's actions now caused the failure that he and his republican enablers have orchestrated and presided over for years. I'm just not convinced that those who advocate a complete cut-off have enough political cover to even achieve the votes needed, much less successfully fight off the inevitable political fallout.

[Jcrowley]

7. Polls consistently show

folks are ready for US to get out of Iraq and those are sloppy and crafted polls at that. Folks are way past ready. It's only the politicos (on both sides of the aisle) who suggest such points as we are discussing here and that gets blasted about by the echo chamber (criminals themselves) and then becomes the manufactured reality.

There is no arbitrary cut-off that too is only a reich-wing lie that falls flat on its face with cursory explanation.

There is way more than twice the money necessary for a steady and sustained withdrawal, no "cut-off", the only thing lacking is the political will. The only thing that is going to bring about that will (read spine) is the likes of you and I forcing it upon our unrepresentatives.

[bigtree]

9. I just don't buy the 'spine' argument, nor do I trust the polls

The polls can change in a heartbeat. We went through a presidential election where some votes Kerry made which Cheney made as well were presented as a cut into our national security and the lie worked with repetition. I'm not convinced that the politicians would be able to fight off the criticism. They haven't been able to in the past, and there's every reason to believe they'd buy into the lie this time.

Remember, Bush can manipulate the money the Pentagon has already allocated any way he wants. I'm really not going to convince anyone who's already committed to pulling the funds that they won't be able to sustain their position in the face of the drumbeat of criticism from the opposition and the press. It's just something that once experienced - as our party has in the past - will not be broached again. I lived through the era where our party was smeared as soft on defense and the rest, and I know that the politics won't support the type of cut-off critics of the Democratic leadership are hollering for. And, the politics aren't at all unimportant. We lose the political debate, we lose the ability to credibly confront Bush on his own actions.

It makes no sense at all to accuse the new majority of some sort of political cowardice. Most of them aren't going to be up for reelection for a few years. What they are mostly concerned with is losing the political high ground which has our party firmly in opposition to everything Bush and his republican enablers have done to keep us bogged down in Iraq. The moment Democrats vote on a binding bill, they will assume their share of responsibility for the outcome of the occupation. Every idiotic move by Bush thereafter will reflect back on to whatever legislative remedy the Democrats succeed in enacting. That public reaction could also reflect back negatively on other important legislative initiatives from our party. The politics are not just about getting elected, they affect the way our party is able to govern.

That said, I believe we need to pass and present a withdrawal plan to Bush which is buttressed by the actions of the budget committee. That way, Congress will have actually directed Bush to do something. I believe that if we just reject the appropriation, Bush will still insist he has a mandate from the original resolution to continue. Every step of the way he'll blame the Democrats for blocking money which he'll claim is necessary for the 'success' he says he expects in Iraq. If we pass a withdrawal plan we will be able to turn to Bush and tell him that he's exceeded the clear mandate of Congress and then proceed further. Right now, the new Congress hasn't actually directed him to do anything in Iraq. He said as much after they passed the non-binding one. We need to make clear what our intentions for him are, in a binding resolution, and use the appropriations process to spell out just where Congress intends for the money to be spent. Otherwise, Bush will just take the money and continue his occupation, claiming a mandate from the original IWR. He doesn't care a wit if the soldiers suffer so long as he makes his political point.

Also I'm not convinced that our soldiers have enough resources to maintain their safety, security, and well-being right NOW, despite the insistence from Kucinich and others that money is already in the pipeline. What have we been focusing on in the past week, if not the shortages our military is experiencing in all aspects of their operations? There are certainly other priorities in the supplemental which have nothing to do with the troops in the field. But, again, it wouldn't take much for Bush to callously manipulate those resources to effectively shortchange the soldiers on the Iraq battlefields, those in the support roles in the region and at home, and those soldiers who've returned wounded and in need of care. That's why merely stopping the supplemental won't stop the occupation.

I fear that without a clear direction from Congress in the form of an amended IWR, or from a clear plan for withdrawal, Bush will continue anyway, funds or no funds. All he would have to say in his defense is that Democrats tied his hands without changing the mission. In my view, that's a recipe for a Democratic political train wreck.

(btw, it's really not alright to call what I believe about the funding some kind of republican propaganda. I just don't believe that rejecting the supplemental would leave the troops untouched. I don't believe that any of the money 'in the pipeline' would be spent by the administration to properly maintain the troops as they continue their dubious mission.)

[bigtree]

11. .

[bigtree]

12. .

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Just to be clear, you don't need a majority to vote no on the pending Iraq supplemental

You can simply not allow it to ever reach the floor. Kill it in the Armed Services Committee, kill it in the Rules Committee, or the Speaker can just schedule the vote until way after the funding has expired.

I'm not suggesting that we do this, but I would point out that if the Republics were in our situation, that is exactly what they would do.