Do we want Congress to pass an Iraq bill or argue about Iran?

[bigtree]

There's a misleading article posted which says Democrats 'abandoned' their initiative which restricted Bush on Iran. But the Democrats didn't abandon anything. They apparently counted the votes they needed for passage of their Iraq proposal and determined that the opposition to the Iran provision would bog the bill down.

They didn't want to get caught up in arguing about Iran as they tried to pass the Iraq bill. It makes sense. Why tie up the Iraq withdrawal bill with language about Iran? They will, correctly, concentrate on doing what it takes to get the Iraq bill passed on to the Senate to get it to Bush's desk as soon as possible.

The Iran initiative will have to stand on its own, or as an amendment to another bill. It will come up again, though. Just, not on the Iraq bill. Our leadership is doing what they are supposed to do in making certain they have the widest margin of support to pass their Iraq bill. They are counting the votes for the Iraq bill (as we should be) and not allowing the debate (arguing) over the Iran provision to doom the effort.

The media is doing their best to divide us and sabotage their work.

[Eric J in MN]

1. If the Democrats pass a separate Iran bill soon...

...and before Bush bombs Iran, then I will accept that.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. No bills will pass

that aren't attached to spending. Make the president agree to our terms or get no money..that si the only way anythign will get done. AIPAC and big business have made sure that will not happen. Now we will have nothing but a smoke and mirror show..lots of screaming with no results. Just what Democrats know how to do best.

[MzNov]

8. I agree.

[ReadTomPaine]

14. Bingo

Only a fool would think otherwise.

[bigtree]

15. The Senate still can take it up with Webb's proposal

This 'fool' isn't going to let himself get caught up in tearing down our own party and leadership over a misleading media report.

All of the whining for them to do something on Iraq and when they do, their critics want them to muddle it by arguing over Iran in the same bill, no matter if it drags the entire Iraq bill down over IRAN. Only a fool would doom the Iraq withdrawal bill and leave our soldiers in limbo NOW to argue over some future move Bush MIGHT make LATER.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Both are bogus sellouts.

The "Iraq Withdrawal Bill" has no teeth. The Democratic "leaders" are attempting to pacify the anti-war feeling by pretending to be doing something to end the war by September of 2008. That's 19 months from now! And, it's dependent on Bush's voluntary approval to comply with the "certification" process honestly.

They simply caved to the rightwing of the party and AIPAC on the Iran amendment.

As usual, the "leadership" is playing politics with lives by trying to look like being anti-war and appearing to "support the troops" by funding it.

Pathetic.

[Sonicmedusa]

4. Well said.

[BayCityProgressive]

7. our party is a FAUX people's party

I vote for them nationally but work to build up independents and 3rd parties locally. The Democrats are comfortable with things as they are.

[MzNov]

6. I agree.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. thank you. well said. nt

[bigtree]

16. When this effort gets to the Senate and they have their say

it will be the first direct rebuke of his occupation to reach Bush's desk. That will be significant. It will add to the pressure for Bush to bring our troops home. It may not move him in and of itself, but he will be served with the will of Congress when he's presented with whatever final bill emerges. Everyone but Congress' critics will recognize that as a demand for a withdrawal by, or before, the end date in the legislation.

The business of certification can be easily tightened up. and I think it will be.

Politics is what our legislators do in our political system. It's a matter of votes. They need enough votes to pass anything. In the House that means reconciling 500 different ambitions. The leadership is counting the votes, as we should be. That's how our political system works.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. They should be counting the votes that put them in office to end the war.

It's time, past time, to get past "politics as usual".

[bigtree]

19. that's just rhetoric unless they can produce the votes to actually pass something

they count them, and we just blur our eyes to the realities of reconciling all of the different views in Congress and bash away. So much for 'how a bill becomes law'

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. "Pass something?"

Like what? A bill that continues to fund the war and makes an empty promise to end it in 19 months? To what purpose?

And, that after stripping it of a provision that might "tie the presidents hands" if he decides to attack Iran.

If they just want to pass bills, they could guarantee passage with a bill naming a highway after Reagan. Or, another one vowing to "Support Our Troops".

[Dr Fate]

23. No-No- you are supposed to think this is rocket-science...

Arent you Confuuuused?- this is soooo confuuusing- they know something you dont-repeat-they no something you dont...repeat...

;)

[bigtree]

26. everyone except the critics on the blogosphere and DU

will recognize this as legislation demanding a withdrawal before or by the end date.

There is no sense at all in letting people bog down the bill arguing over Iran. It would only serve Bush to defeat the legislation. Then we would truly be left with nothing but the idiotic option of denying one supplemental and expecting Bush to notice, care, and withdraw.

I see you bought the premise and the statements from the news article. There may well be those who don't want to 'tie Bush's hands' but that is not the point. Their bickering over the Iran provision threatened the Iraq withdrawal legislation. That's why it was stripped. There are dilettantes who would rather argue about Iran instead of focusing on making the Iraq legislation better and helping it pass.

There are some in Congress who would want to hide their opposition to withdraw from Iraq by focusing on the Iran provision. I can see how it doesn't matter to those who don't believe in the Iraq withdrawal proposal to begin with, but I don't believe the Iraq effort should be held hostage to the Iran provision. There will be other spending bills to attach it to. This Congress isn't going out of business. They've been at it for almost 7 weeks. It's just not credible to claim, as the article did, that they've 'abandoned' the Iraq proposal. It's just not going to be included in the Iraq supplemental. That makes sense if they intend to pass the legislation on to the Senate for their consideration as soon as possible.

This House bill will be tightened up in the Senate where individual senators have more opportunities to amend it. I expect a battle over the certification in the bill and over the deadlines. Of course that's not going to interest any one who's convinced themselves that there is no value in the compromise our leadership has crafted.

I think we have an imperfect system, but I don't know any better way to reconcile the hundreds of different proposals from legislators who share the same goal of bringing our troops home as soon as possible. The Congress operates on votes. There is no mechanism for the leadership to just dictate action. They can either set the debate up for an endless argument or they can try to compromise and move the debate forward. I'm satisfied to see them compromising and moving this legislation, even though it's not what I would have proposed. I'm not going to accept the critic's claims that this is a worthless effort. It happens to be the ONLY effort which has a chance in hell of reaching Bush's desk.

[Dr Fate]

28. So the article is lying about the "Conservative Democrats"- they really do want to stop Bush?

And they will support the "other" bill where we require congressional approval for Bush to invade Iran?

Do you have the numbers on which of the "Conservative Democrats" that had this taken out are planning to support the new, later version?

[bigtree]

29. There are, of course, Democrats who will oppose the Iran legislation

But, I don't think they have enough votes to reject the initiative when presented with a full debate. I don't have the numbers, but the leadership does. The concern that was expressed and directly quoted with attribution was about the votes needed to pass the Iraq withdrawal proposal. The rest was a loose quote from an 'official'.

I think the Iran matter deserves its own space apart from the Iraq debate. I actually think the passage of the Iraq legislation will put even more pressure on Bush to abandon his war-making and military muckraking by beginning to re-assert the primacy of Congress in the deployment of our military outside of immediate defense.

[Dr Fate]

30. Yes- the same ones who always work to divide the party- the "conservative" DLCers.

The same idiots who hleped Bush get us into Iraq in the first place.

In any event, I agree with you that it should be in it's own separate bill. But if limiting Bush is not popular with the DLC now,at this late date, I dont see it being popular with them later- but I could be wrong...

After all I've seen over the years, I have no way of knowing for sure whether the DLCers will side with me or Bush on this.

At this point, I would just have to take your word for it, and I dont even know who you are besides another DUer like me.

[bigtree]

33. I think first Webb will try to include it as an amendment to the Senate version

of the Iraq withdrawal legislation. It won't be stripped, but it may not survive the inevitable cloture vote. Warner was the one who was quoted as concerned about limiting Bush's ability to wage war. But the provision includes a out for Bush if an attack was imminent.

The Senate action should be a test of it's potential for support, but the debate could be clouded by folks looking for a distraction and a way to avoid rejecting the withdrawal legislation on its own merits. The Iran provision could give them cover as they argue about Iran and ignore the underlying intention of the effort which intends to effect a withdrawal from Iraq. I don't think we will know the extent of its support or opposition until it's separated from the Iraq matter.

Webb wants to assert in his legislation that Bush should not construe whatever authorization Congress makes or has made regarding Iraq as a pretext to invade Iran. That's why it seemed tailor-made for the Iraq bill. I think the same could be accomplished, however, if the main focus of the legislative effort was on Iran, not on the Iraq withdrawal.

We'll see. Reid has said he supports it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070301/pl_nm/iran_usa_congress_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) on Thursday said he likely would support legislation barring a U.S. attack on Iran unless Congress explicitly gave President George W. Bush the green light to do so.

The Nevada Democrat was responding to reporters' questions about an amendment to an upcoming war-funding bill, which could come to the Senate floor later this month. The amendment is being drafted by Sen. James Webb, the Virginia Democrat who won his seat in November largely on a vow to work to end the war in Iraq.

"I would be very, very confident, I have not read this (amendment), but I'm confident, in real generality ... that I can support him," Reid told reporters.

[bbgrunt]

39. bingo.

[ends_dont_justify]

5. It's their attitude

Time isn't really on our side with iran, what with emporer psychopath in office. So the more time democrats dilly dally and not get momentum the more this raging fireball of republican hate and lust for war comes at its top speed. We need people in office who know what they're doing, image be damned and just do it.

[BayCityProgressive]

9. they know what they

are doing..they just want to do things we don't want them to.

[bigtree]

20. That used to be the argument for not letting anything get in the way of withdrawal

we used to argue they should focus exclusively on Iraq. The leadership has decided that the Iran provision would distract from that debate and stripped it from the IRAQ bill. Why would we want the Iraq effort to get bogged down by arguing on the House floor about the Iran provision?

Why give anyone a reason or cover to vote against the Iraq withdrawal by objecting to the Iran provision in the bill?

[TwilightGardener]

11. Honestly, anymore, I'm just about ready for Dems to give up

any attempt to control this admin. Let the freakin' neocon club have its way with the world.

[dogman]

12. They have abandoned slowing the push to Iran.

That is all this bill would have done. The language in the bill does not force a withdrawal from Iraq. The bill is so watered down by the Blue Dogs pissing on it that it provides more funds and leaves it to the discretion of bushco if withdrawal is feasible. The power of the Dems to stop this BS was proven when the Dems slapped Pelosi and forced Hoyer on her. We went into this war due to enabling Dems, and they will keep us there. The only need they have for a Dem majority is so they control the flow of money instead of the GOPers. You sure don't see these breaks from the leadership on the other side.

[BayCityProgressive]

13. The only thing the next election will decide

is whether to Invade Iran..which will happen if a Repuke gets in..or do strategic bombing, sanctions, and support seperatist groups within if a Dem wins..different strategies same results. All you have to is look back at Clinton. He didn't invade Iraq but he destroyed it's infrastructure, killed them with sanctions, and passed the Iraq Freedom Act. The same people are pulling all of their strings.

[bigtree]

17. None of the change in the leadership would have changed the votes

on the Iran provision. They counted the votes and the Iraq bill would have been held up by the bickering of some of the legislators they need to pass their Iraq bill. All of the talk about controlling the money is meaningless unless they have the VOTES.

[dogman]

24. They're still having a problem passing the pissed on bill.

We have a minority majority. There are too many Dems profiting from the war. Either directly or through campaign contributions. After all we have seen, any one with common sense knows, the voters come in a distant second to money.

[Dr Fate]

22. Is this "Rope-a-Dope" or "Keep Your Powder Dry"?

The Iran initiative will come up again?

Sure- and when we cave on that, there will be even more internal talking points.

[bigtree]

25. conversely

no matter what they do there will still be the same chorus criticizing them for not doing more and offering no credible plan to get there

[Dr Fate]

27. Criticizing them for not doing more? How dare taxpayers/voters do such a thing!!

Of all the nerve!!!!

And you are wrong- it is not a case of "no matter what they do it's wrong"- with me- I support & defend them when they get it right-it's just not as often I would like it to be.

And you are wrong about not having a credible plan to get there- you gave it to us yourself- it is to pass another Bill (Perhaps Webb's?)that requires Congressional approval to Invade Iraq- one not connected to this current bill.

The question is- will the "Conservative Democrats" and the Israel First bunch stop that one as well.

[bigtree]

31. I actually think Webb's initiative will show up on in the Senate version

and return to the House to be addressed in the reconciliation conference. We'll see, but the leadership counted the votes in the House committee and concluded that they didn't have enough support with the Iran provision included to even get the bill out of the committee. It's just not worth the distraction to take it up in this proposal. I honestly think that's what some want: cover to vote against the Iraq withdrawal by claiming their only concern was the Iran provision. With it out of the way, now we can see who's really committed to the underlying Iraq initiative.

What will the Israel coalition do? Who knows? The one thing we do know is that they were willing to threaten the withdrawal legislation just to have their way. Those are the members who deserve our protests, criticisms, and actions, not the leadership or the Democratic majority as a whole.

[mmonk]

32. Same thing. We control the house. Case closed.

[bigtree]

34. 'We' apparently don't have enough votes to pass the Iraq legislation in the House

with the Iran provision attached.

'Control' means having the votes. All of the rest doesn't matter a whit.

[mmonk]

35. Which means some democrats support giving bush open ended

power regarding Iran. That by the way, is the problem that's got everyone pissed.

[bigtree]

36. There are more than a few legislators who were elected because of their support for Israel

and Israel's agenda. That's not a conspiracy, it's an obstacle which has to be addressed politically. They have every right to their beliefs and have as much influence as the importance of their vote. Support for Israel and defense of Israel in Congress has long been a Democratic obsession. They have a lot of votes. We need to generate more votes than them.

[mmonk]

37. Instead of having our leadership whip

our members into line? Since when does support for Israel require giving the bush administration unlimited and boundless war powers?

[bbgrunt]

38. I'm sorry--this should not be an "either/or" and

such compromise will mean nothing when the bombs start flying.