Shifting around on Iraq. (Be very careful out there this week.)

[TayTay]

Last week, as we know, Sen. Reid said that he would co-sponsor Sen. Feingold's bill to begin to withdraw funding for the war if Pres Bush vetoes the Supplemental Bill that the Congress is in the process of working out. (Lots of if statements there.) Reid was attempting to be tough with Bush and let him know that the Congress intends to push back against the failing Iraq War.

Sen. Levin, in remarks on Sunday morning talk shows yesterday, said that he in no way intends to support any bills that pull the funding for the troops. He, and others in the Senate, have signalled that if Bush vetoes the bill, he will push to remove the offending passage from the Supplemental that requires a phased withdrawal. He said that Reid, in effect, didn't mean what he said last week when he talked about pulling the funding and it was just posturing to look tough for the cameras.

Sen. Kerry has not qualified his support for the Feingold bill and, to the best of my knowledge, still thinks this is a good way to move the Admin to make changes in their Iraq War policies. However, Kerry, Feingold and the other Dems who are in support of this bill have just been undermined by their own side on this. (Again.) It's not hard to see who on the Dem side is pushing to ratchet down the rhetoric on cutting the funding. (Hello NY Senators!)

So, just a heads up, this could be a big headache of a week. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

For your reading enjoyment: (ok, enjoyment is not the right word here, sigh!)

The New York Times today talks about how the Surge is, in effect, not really doing anything to affect real change because the Iraqis still will not talk to each other: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/middleeast/09surge.html?hp

Moqtada al Sadr calls for one of the biggest anti-US demonstrations in Iraq in a long time to mark the 4th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/middleeast/09cnd-iraq.html?hp

Iraq is a death zone of US journalists and it is so unsafe that there are almost no journalist or news organizations willing to pay the money to have reporters embedded in country: http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4301

Harry Reid lays a gun on the table with the idea of stopping funding for the war last week. Carl LEvin tells everyone not to worry because not only is the gun not loaded, but it doesn't even have a firing mechanism: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2007/04/april_8_democrats_willing_to_d_1.html?hpid=topnews

"Staying the course" isn't far-sighted; it's blind. Leaving our troops in the middle of a civil war isn't resolute; it's reckless. Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion.

John Kerry, 9/9/06 Boston, MA

[Inuca]

1. From the WP link

(which I was going to post, but in spite of your bust schedule, you were faster :-))

Levin suggested that the more far-reaching bill, co-sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) would not go anywhere if it contains measures to cut funding. "Harry Reid acknowledged that that's not going to happen. He has a personal position, which he said was not the caucus position. He was very clear when he joined a bill which would cut off funding under certain circumstances."

Earlier I heard it beig refered to as Feingold-Reid, do you think the wording here means anything? And by the way, Levin is becoming quite the underminer. What exactly did Schumer say? The quote in the article does not seem clear either way with respect to the Feingold bill. It's really quite sad if/when they cave so easily on this.

[TayTay]

2. In my own personal opinion

the RW noise on Nancy Pelosi and her trip to Syria spooked people. It brought up the old fears that Dems are going to be painted as soft on terrorism and as undermining our troops. So, as before, many Dems will desert this strong measure and leave it to the hardcore 'liberals' to fight for.

Sigh! That spine implant for a lot of Dems is being rejected. This is NOT good news and it could be another ugly week of name-calling in the Senate with a total lack of backup for the Dems who do speak for the funding measure. This is not fun or good, but I suspect it may be real.

[wisteria]

3. The Reid strategy was undermined by Obama last week and now

has been effectively rendered DOA by Levin and Schumer. The Republicans got the Dem's to cry uncle. They were able to paint the withdraw of funding as anti-troop and they had public opinion polls to back it up. They framed the issue and unfortunately the public bought into it. The media has been in compliance with the administration over this Reid bill from the beginning and although people want to see our troops withdrawn, they don't want to see them do without what they need while they are over there.

Unfortunately, I think Obama, Levin and Schumer have collectively pushed the Dem's back down the stairs and now we have to climb almost all the way back up. This is so unfortunate and very frustrating.

[TayTay]

4. And predictable

That's why this is a 'fight we have to have' to quote one really smaht guy.

[ProSense]

5. Why is Levin

trying to undermine the Democrats' position?

[MH1]

6. I thought Levin was stating fact

A bill to stop funding will NOT get passed.

Whether it was a good strategic move for him to say it or not, I don't know.

I had kinda thought the Dems were going to bring defunding to a vote, and let the R's vote against it - thus going on record with a position that will be more and more unpopular as things deteriorate in Iraq. Problem is, those Sens. from NY, plus a few other D's in certain states, REALLY don't want that vote either.

And since one of those Sens. from NY is running for Prez and currently holds the biggest slice of cheese....

[beachmom]

7. So is this a change for Kerry? Cutting funding? Because before

he said he wasn't in favor of it. Now he is? Or is it more a bargaining chip against Bush? Or has Bush's reaction created a reaction in Kerry that it's time for the big guns -- the power of the purse? He'll need to explain that.

He talked about Step 1, step 2, etc.

Step 1: Non-binding resolution saying no to the surge (Biden or Hagel)
Step 2: Not allowing funds for the surge (Kennedy)
Step 3: Binding resolution to set a timetable for withdrawal (Reid)
Bush says he will veto
Step 4: Binding resolution to set a timetable for withdrawal after which funding will be cut off EXCEPT for the 3 jobs of training, counterterrorism, and force protection.

Is that what is up?

[blm]

8. I heard it as they would vote to cut off funds after the one year withdrawal period, leaving

ONLY in place the funding for training Iraqi troops, counterterrorism, and a protective force for the withdrawing troops.

[rox63]

9. It sounds like step 4 is the current Feingold bill that JK's co-sponsoring n/t

[TayTay]

10. Yes

and an excellent table explaining it to boot.

Congress is slowly drawing ever tighter circles around what the Admin can and cannot do. The funding cutoff is the last and most drastic step and we all know that it is unlikely to pass anytime soon. (We have a closely divided Senate.)

But, it should not be either put on or taken off the table lightly. The issues surrounding funding the war also bring up so many other things, like funding for Veteran's Health Care and so forth, that it is irresponsible to pull this out just any ole time. It is a drastic step.

As I understand it, and I could well be wrong, the idea on this was to force Bush to accept the Supplemental that was agreed to by the respective branches of Congress with the widhtdrawal clause that both branches have included. (Ah, okay, they have not been reconciled, so first they have to be reconciled, then re-voted on, then sent up to Bush, but we get the gist of this, right?) If Bush vetoes this, then (and only then) would the Feingold bill come up which addresses the funding. I thought that was what Kerry was agreeing to as well, that this option is real and that it can, at some future point, be on the table. Levin just said, no, this is not on the agenda anytime soon. (So, does that make this a disagreement on tactics?)

[rox63]

11. It sounds like Levin, Schumer, Obama, etc, are undermining any serious effort

to bring the troops home. :(

[ProSense]

12. Kerry seems opposed to cutting all funding, but has

alluded to stronger measures to force a shift in policy, November 2006:

KERRY: There are all kinds of things that the Senate can do. They can change the dynamics here very significantly, not the least of which, obviously, are serious accountability hearings.

Secondly, we have the ability in the Congress to pass one resolution or another or to put into law certain kinds of policies. I mean, you remember back in the days of the Contras in Central America, the Congress passed what was called the Boland Amendment and actually forbade certain activities from taking place.

So Congress has a certain power here. I think before we get into that, it would be so much better if we could sit down with the president, with Condoleezza Rice, and really talk through how we come together, both parties, take the politics out at the water's edge, and get a policy that works for America.

MyDD interview last week:

Kerry: No, I'm against funding the war no matter what. And today I've joined up with Senator Harry Reid and Senator Feingold. The only thing we should fund is to complete the training of the troops, to prosecute against Al Qaeda and to protect American forces and facilities and interests in the region.

We should not be engaged in Civil War in Iraq. And I would vote a year from now, which is the date we said we should be redeploying our troops, we ought to be cutting off those other activities.

edited typo

[TayTay]

13. Sounds to me like an excellent time for a floor speech

clarifying this. Don't you think so?

[beachmom]

14. Sounds good to me. When does Congress go back into session? n/t

[Inuca]

15. Senate tomorrow, House next week n/t