You know, legislatively, Democrats can't end the occupation with their votes alone

[bigtree]

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the members of Congress who are trying to forge compromises which allow withdrawal legislation to advance are doing their part to end the occupation. They haven't succeeded in moving Bush off of his occupation, but their efforts, so far, have resulted in providing the bulk of the pressure from Congress that has made their republican counterparts nervous enough to try and move Bush themselves.

And, today he blinked. The immediate reaction from our party's leadership was right on target. Speaker Pelosi, after engineering an up or down vote on an Iraq withdrawal, took advantage of Bush's weak attempt to appease his nervous party by making him eat his words about accepting 'benchmarks' for the Iraqi regime.

Pelosi today:

"The President has long said he supports benchmarks; what he fails to
accept is accountability for failing to meet those benchmarks. Benchmarks
without consequences and enforcement are meaningless, a blank check . . ."

This is how our party is working to force Bush off of his self-serving attempt to dig in on Iraq until he leaves office. We need to pick off whatever we choose of his rhetoric to challenge him with and put the rest in whatever place it deserves. He shouldn't be allowed to just give lip service to a retreat from his obstinacy without being held to account for what he tells the American people.

Bush isn't as fireproof as he pretends. The combination of the rising public opposition to the occupation, opposition within the ranks of his own party and military, and opposition to him personally is beginning to produce cracks in his facade.

I think the vote today on the McGovern initiative, while disappointing in the number of Democrats in the House who voted against it, would not have been enough to move Bush by itself. But, it did demonstrate a huge number in our party who are committed to pulling the bulk of our soldiers out of the way of Iraq's civil war as soon as possible. Those members have been, and will be again, extremely important wherever we intend to confront the White House. While they've been outvoted, they will still be needed (at every turn) to provide a solid resistance from our party against Bush's militarism. We can't pass anything out of Congress without them.

Most of those who voted against the measure - which would have left a residual amount of troops in Iraq for 'training' and whatever efforts against the Iraqi 'al-Qaeda' the military can manage - are not pro-war, as some have suggested. Many of those congresspersons voted for the compromise bill which set the stage for the legislation which confronted Bush at his desk; the legislation which is, for the most part, responsible for putting Bush in the box he's in.

I thought it was interesting how, after the successful votes on the withdrawal bills in the House and Senate, many those who had stood as opponents of those bills, nonetheless, used that leverage to argue that Bush was ignoring the will of Congress that he withdraw. Certainly there are those who still insist these efforts were appeasements to Bush and license for him to continue.

However, the reality is that our party -- the 'out of Iraq now' coalition, along with the 'compromise coalition' -- is waging the best fight they can manage against Bush, given the balance of power in Congress. No backbiting or ridiculous charges of appeasement can change that fact. We need to continue the pressure and build on these efforts, not spend our time cynically tearing at them.

To Bush, the efforts of the vast majority of our Democratic legislators, together, represents solid opposition to his occupation; as we intend them to be. These elected officials represent those who elected them in their resolve to end the occupation; but are also representative of those voters in the myriad of solutions and proposals on how best to achieve that end. It's all opposition to Bush, though.

Let's not lose sight of all of that as we press our cases forward. WE are making a difference. We will ultimately prevail if we don't allow ourselves to be torn apart from within, or from without.

Now, back to work . . .


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[MadHound]

1. The Dems don't need the vote to end the occupation, just a collective spine

All that has to be done to end this war is to hold up each and every supplemental war funding bill in committe, starve the war and bring the troops home. Plain, pure, simple. No need to mess with legislation, benchmarks or Bush. Congress did before in the Vietnam era, it is high time that it was done again.

[bigtree]

4. There isn't enough support for that action. At some point we have to recognize that

and try to do what is possible, given the make-up of the body and the balance of power.

To just sit obstinate, feathering our own individual positions to the point of doing nothing at all isn't a course that I'm willing to accept.

[mmonk]

2. We could do a whole lot more if we were united.

In fact, we have sheer numbers to impeach. We could also attempt to de-authorize this war and its funding because both lie under the purview of congress according to the constitution. One thing for sure, I'm not voting for democrats that I don't agree with anymore on the premise of subpoena power if nothing happens to hold this administration accountable before 09. Fool me once, shame on me.

[bigtree]

10. We have 'sheer numbers' to initiate impeachment

to a point . . .

Also, accountability doesn't have to necessarily rise to the level of impeachment to be effective. We won't succeed in an impeachment, anyway, if we are perceived as using the process to shortcut what we couldn't achieve legislatively. If there are charges which can be sustained with evidence gathered in Congress then we should proceed with whatever action appropriate, including impeachment. I think that effort would best be accomplished after some indictment served from an independent counsel appointed by one of the investigative committees already working to hold the administration accountable. But to suggest that our party can't hold Bush accountable without removing him just underscores an unnecessary insecurity of our own party's ability to legislate.

[mmonk]

16. Impeachment will not necessarily remove him if the Senate doesn't

go along and impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors isn't a piece of legislation, so it doesn't have anything to do with legislating. I'm here to agitate for a hard constitutional line against these republican offenders. As far as the benchmarks go, I'm all for it if it works. If it doesn't, we need to put our foot down and keep this disaster from continuing on its present course.

[bigtree]

17. do we have a majority in the House who would vote for the articles which would emerge?

Who knows? I do think the case should be solid and predictable before we jump into it. I think it would be less assured if the process was perceived as purely, or mostly, just a political act to shortcut the deliberative process, like with the Iraq matter.

So, I believe it would need to be initiated out of one of the investigative committees, not from the leadership set apart from those committees. Ideally, it would make the process more assured and supportable if the initiative came out of some indictment from an appointed, outside prosecutor associated with one of the investigative committees to take the tinge of partisanship away and allow members to be viewed as voting for points of law rather than some political agenda. Also, it needs to be viewed as a necessary course and not just a shortcut to legislating.

Remember, the Senate, when it receives the articles, has to come up with 2/3 of their members to convict.

[bonito]

3. IMPEACH NOW! or roll over n/t

[bigtree]

5. That action can't be achieved unilaterally, with our own party's votes either

I don't know why some folks are trying to convince us that it can be done with our party's votes alone. I also don't agree with the suggestion that republicans would just roll over in the face of such an action.

Even more misleading is the suggestion that Bush wouldn't be able to just continue his occupation in the face of a partisan move to impeach him. The end to the occupation before Bush's term is ended is my goal. If an impeachment manages that I'll be more than satisfied. I just don't believe the hype.

[bonito]

7. Well, I'm just not a self defeatist n/t

[mmonk]

8. Impeachment merely requires a majority of the House.

Are you saying we don't have a majority in the House? And how many people in the general public still don't know the crimes committed? Well, guess what, they won't know most likely without impeachment. If the Senate wants to save bush and Cheney's ass after the crimes have been exposed to the American people, then so be it. They still will have been impeached. Our country is broken right now. We, in effect, have NO WORKING constitution. There's no excuse I will accept that this is ok hunkey dorey fine. My two cents.

[bigtree]

11. There are several layers to the process

At some point we will have to convince republicans to join in the action. If you'll allow me, I won't go through the litany here. I think the point where the partisan approach breaks down is in the appointment of impeachment committees. From there it will need more than a partisan will to move it forward to any prosecution.

I actually think we may be moving toward that end, but I don't think impeachment can be used to shortcut the regular legislative process or substitute for the many other levers of accountability available to our party.

[Hekate]

6. Kick for reality-based politics. The best ones know how and when to compromise...

...to get the most done.

Unless you have a supermajority and can get your troops to march lockstep the way Newt Gingrich and Tom "the Hammer" DeLay could, you need to know how to make it work another way.

We are Democrats, not Rovian Brownshirts, and that means we DO NOT march in lockstep to the orders of little dictators. For better or worse, that's who we are.

I think Pelosi and Reid are making progress, along with Leahy and Conyers. And I thank the gods they are in power at last.

Hekate

[mmonk]

12. I'll applaud when I see progress towards that end.

And we do have enough to impeach if they would get together and do it. I'm not saying there isn't a strategy. It's just not a very forceful one so far and administration officials still snub their noses at congressional authority, obstruct, lie and ignore with no consequences so far.

[The Magistrate]

9. Hear Hear, Mr. Tree!

Well said and well reasoned as always, Sir!

A pleasure to give this its first recommendation for the Greatest page, where it belongs.

[Old and In the Way]

13. I am amazed at what gutless cowards the Republicans are.

For the past 6 years, they rubberstamped everything Bush wanted....and rubberstamped themselves into the minority. They still haven't figured it out yet. How many are voting against their conscience and against their constituents demands to appease the Commander Guy? At what point will they put this country's interests before their Party? Apparently, never. I hope the American people reward this sorry excuse for a political party properly come Nov. 2008.

At this point, we can control the agenda and play strong defense....but we can't go on offense if we can't over-ride vetoes. The Democratic leadership know this and the best outcome they can hope for is to continue to keep the pressure on the Republicans and hopefully the constituents of each Republican district will remember their Rep's loyalty to the war criminal over the best interests of this country in 18 months.

[salib]

14. I really appreciate your analysis.

I also appreciate how reasonable the discussion is on this thread.

However, I cannot be reasonable. Our soldiers, our friends, our children, our parents, are DYING and KILLING over there for a BS excuse. Does anyone here want to kill people and be killed simply so this Administration and a number of congressmen and Senators can not look so bad? Kill and be killed so that some military contractors can plan and develop even better ways to kill and be killed? So that investments can be secured? In this light, there is not "reasoned" discussion that does not begin with "No" and end with "Hell No!"

It is also not reasonable to say that we do not "have the votes." No one HAS to vote. The Democratic leadership in the House (and 2/5ths of the Senate) can prevent any new funding bill.

BTW, WE MAKE the votes. The alternative to analyzing to death the political ins and outs and finding reasoned excuses is NOT sit and do nothing. The alternative is to get involved in the primaries, in the public debate, about the War/Occupation.

We do not HAVE to be an empire, occupying smaller countries that we want to pick on and manipulate.

I hate to always be on my soapbox these days, but they are dying,and they are killing, and they terrorizing, and they are destroying each other, and they will come home and we will be healing them for the rest of this generation, Iraq will remember this event in hundreds of years when they are on top of the heap and picking on others.

It has got to end.

Now.

[bigtree]

15. I want a government which is as liberal as I am (or even more so), but we haven't gotten there yet

There just hasn't been enough support among the members there for the option of just rejecting a funding bill, or passing one without qualifiers which keep troops in Iraq. I think that was made clear with the vote on the McGovern proposal - which, curiously, would have troops remain for 'training' and 'al-Qaeda' hunting - that most of the members in our party would rather fashion our own legislation than just vote 'no' on a proposed supplemental. I, personally, don't think that just voting 'no' on a supplemental would restrain Bush from continuing to limp our soldiers along without the resources and support they need to keep them safe, secure, and protect their well-being while they are hung out there.

I think all of the ideals you've expressed are shared by the majority in our* party who've worked to find points of agreement in order to advance legislation requiring an exit from Iraq to Bush's desk. It's not the course that you (or I) would choose, but their compromise effort has been the only course which has allowed legislation to reach Bush and directly challenge him. Just voting 'no' on a supplemental directs Bush to do nothing.

What I am focused on right now, given the balance of power in this Congress, is to find ways to forge compromises which will move the question of withdrawal from Iraq as far as possible; hopefully to the point where we can begin to bring some of these soldiers home and out of harm's way. I don't know how anyone could reasonably argue with a proposal which would accomplish just that much.

I do see how folks would expect more from these legislators, so we'll keep pressuring them to drop the qualifiers and develop a more confrontational stance toward the WH. In the space in-between, though, I will work to see if we can't find ways to move the question further. I believe we've had modest success in that and I believe those who've worked past their own personal ideals to forge these compromises should be given as much consideration as those who are still pressing for the ideal.

Thanks for sharing your views.

edit: *

[Time for change]

18. I appreciate your perspective on this

I especially like Pelosi's statement: "What he fails to accept is accountability for failing to meet those benchmarks", though I think it's gone way beyond the point where it's appropriate to stay in Iraq, benchmarks or no.

I do believe though that it is very important that Democrats proceed with impeachment: Bush and Cheney have violated our Constitution and our laws repeatedly and egregiously. We don't have to have a guarantee that it will be successful before beginning the effort. Republcans may or may not roll over once the American people are exposed on a daily basis to the numerous crimes against our Constitution committed by this regime. But given the fact that we don't know for sure what they will do, that is no reason not to try. I don't see why it would hurt Dems politically, even if the attempt failed. The crimes of this administration are far greater than those of the Nixon administration, but most Americans don't see it that way, largely because they haven't gotten the attention that they need. Impeachment hearings have great potential to correct that problem. And Republicans who refuse to go along with it may very well find themselves out of office in 09.

[Zodiak]

19. To be honest

the only strategy against Bush we HAVEN'T tried is fighting back....HARD!

We've tried everything short of that and came up wanting.

[greeneyedboy]

20. there are many different ways to contribute to ending this debacle

people in Congress can make an impact in certain very powerful but circumscribed ways.

the rest of us can do any or all of the following:
- keep pressure on Congress to represent our will
- get our opinions out there in newspaper Letters to the Editor, etc.
- promote clean, secure elections
- register voters
- commit acts of civil disobedience
- make sure everyone we know is well informed
- make sure the well informed people we know are more active
- make sure the active people we know get the support they need
- raise funds for important causes
etc. etc. etc.

any one of these methods can be done in a passionate, engaged, strategic way or a corrupt, mindless way. let's not judge each other by the methods we choose but by how effectively and passionately we execute the method we choose.

people in Congress cannot act like they are kids shouting in the street, and kids shouting in the street should not be as decorous as those in Congress. i personally think Nancy Pelosi is doing a great job framing the debate and not letting the right-wing loons psych her out with their attempts at character assassination.

pick a method you like and do what you can with it.