Iraq Supplemental Postmortem

Unfortunately, it is just about everyone else *except* the fuckers in Washington that will.

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

btw, how do *you* define "progressives"? That word has lost all meaning for me in the last 3 years.

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

At least on Iraq.

How do you define it in this piece, then? You use it a couple of times in your non-quoted material....once in combination with "netroots" another terms that could be quoth in a modern-day Jabberwocky as far as I'm concerned!

Or in your commetn above -- in what ways are you "progressive" on the war? What does that mean?

As a lawyer, I am sure that you use words deliberately, so you must have some ideas about what you are wanting them to mean and/or what you think they mean to others, no?
;)

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

This foolishness is no accident.  The constant spinning, the presenting as a "peace candidate" followed by votes to fund more war is no accident.  Either they started out as liars from the beginning or something turned them into liars as soon as they were elected, but in either case, who, and why?  There is a malignancy in the Democratic Party . . . a malignancy that wants this, and more, war.

Who, and why?

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."    Voltaire

And, like the questioner, I'm talking about the malignancy within the Democratic Party, not the malignancies on the surface of the Republicans, which would have to add at least the oil lobby.

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

The framing of "escalation" vs "withdrawal" was indeed a brilliant ploy on their part.

Is ther really no way to get out of this war, Armando?

Can you think of any options that may work?

Think about that, 2010!!

we're in there until they drive us out in full retreat. this country's politicians won't agree to cede an inch, ever.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

Once they are in the position of imagined strength ...then they are really going to oppose the war. A line will be drawn.

No one sees the wisdom of telling the goddamn truth.

The truth will work...if it's strategizing your after. TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH.

The problem with telling the truth is...the results are not immediate.

If there were one brave congressperson who actively and vociferoulsy opposed the war and called it illegal, who spoke about the misrepresentations of
the threat Iraq really presented, the exaggerated lies about Sadaam, the lies about the war.....that person would be a leader...a potential candidate.

This war will continue to be a disaster. The war has been over for years. America should leave immediately. There is no benefit to staying.

Any politician  who says that will be attacked now and haled as a visionary later ...and be quite electable. 

And what do the Iraqis think of all this Democratic strategizing while they are being raped, tortured, imprisoned, kidnapped, murdered, abused and stolen from?

Oh they have to wait.....until the Democrats attach the supplemental...or whatever it is to the budget for the war...

I'm sure they will understand....

Stu Piddy....a free range human

Which Iraqis?  (0.00 / 0)
The ones who the US are helping are ecstatic.

We are helping Iraqis?? Jesus have mercy! I am so bamboozled by this comment, Armando as to be incredulous.

It's a bloodbath over there! I am typeless.

"I tire of this banal chat...now is the time on Sprockets when we dance." ~Dieter/SNL

We are thorugh the looking glass.

You know SCIRI, DAWA, the Badr Brigade?

The U.S is not helping anyone in Iraq. It is using elements ...one against the other. This is a historical pattern.

No one in Iraq is delighted with U.S. involvement in Iraq. Even Iran who influence in parts of Southern Iraq is said to be such that it is in "control" of parts of Southern Iraq...is not happy....because it is a very dangerous unprediictable situation with an American presence that has no logic to it. America is liable to do anything.

U.S. policy shifts month to month. They will find that their natural allies are the people they have been fighting...the Sunnis...inevitably...those are the people America will support.

The Iraqi governmnent does not like the U.S. It would like the U.S. to leave and recieve it's support and protection from Iran. But this is logistically very difficult at the moment. So they recieve "protection" ( as in mafia protection) from the U.S. The U.S threatens the government with it's destruction at the same time it "protects" it.

It is true that the U.S. is fighting itself and promoting Iranian interests. And for that reason among others,  it will attack Iran.

In order to keep the Iranian government functioning so as to create the appearance of "success in Iraq" the U.S. is actually promoting Iranian influence...which the U.S. says it is opposed to. So the U.S is in contradiction with itself. The U.S (Stands for Unbelievably Stupid )  is in a convoluted situation which it hopes to resolve in part by bombing Iran and thereby keeping Irant involved with it's own problems as a result of the bombing...rather than strenghten itself in Iran.

It's a very stupid "stategy" ...as stupid as the Democrats strategy which will backfire in both cases.

TELL THE GODDAMN TRUTH! Forget about STRATEGY. Strategy is just a lot of convoluted lies. In the long run...the truth will have benefit. Strategy just prolongs the agony.

Stu Piddy....a free range human

Iran won the IRaq War.

  So Iran will gain nothing, the U.S. will gain nothing, The Shiites will gain nothing and the Sunnis will gain nothing.

Then there are the Kurds...their problems are just begging. Turkey is poised to invade this spring unless...I guess...the U.S. tries (and it cannot) to clamp down on the PKK.

Iran did not win the Iraq war...there are no winners...and I mean that practically. Everyone is going to lose. Iran will not control Central Iraq and certainly not Northern Iraq. The control they have over Southern Iraq will do them no good. The U.S. will support the Sunnis eventually as insurgents against them. The handwriting is on the wall. The U.S. shifts allies.

The intention of the United States is to create choas. There is no purpose for being in Iraq other than to destroy. And that...is the final intention of George Bush, the neo con and much of the American public. They simply like violence. When you strip it all away...all the philosophical debate.....you are left with what is observalbe. What is observable is the only thing you can use to know intent. What is observable is chaos and destruction.  That's the intent. Hard to believe? Humans are not so nice.

The bottom line is if the Democrats are not for removing this nation from the Hell of Iraq then voting and candidacies really are meaningless. The voters have no influence.

Stu Piddy....a free range human

I would respectfully suggest that we are being used, by people who are well-versed in the art of seeing and taking any advantage they can get; it started when Chalabi successfully diddled Rumsfeld and Co. And we're hopelessly outclassed.

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

Stu Piddy....a free range human

So what exactly are our next steps?

Progressive primary challenges for blue dogs might be one.  I think they are over-cautious about constituencies that are beginning to break away from Reagan Republicanism and toward progressive issues if not progressive ideas.

Want a third party -- 50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts -- Go get 'em

The baseline has been set. IT is downhill from here.

What's needed now is a stronger action by an _independent_ antiwar movement to pressure the party in a "don't vote for a funding bill" direction. Where the hell are the college campuses? On spring break? There's more activism on Iraq from senior citizens (seems like).

It also might be nice if the Obama enfatuated would make him feel some pain for his current position. He's should not have a single antiwar supporter now, right?

Anyway, there is still time, especially if Bush vetoes (he doesn't have to, the House bill has no real obstacles to him doing what he wants as long as he wants).

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

That's the root of the problem . . . an unwillingness to even name, let alone engage, the War Team.

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."    Voltaire

I just don't see it, honestly -- I don't see the political power in the progressive caucus and I don't see the power on the ground in terms of pressure from the voters. That means, IMO, that the political reality is that funding must be passed, and while this bill is far, far from enough, it also does force the issue on the country that there must be a real "when". All the republicans and blue dogs have, politically, to fall back on is that they don't want to "transmit the timeline to the enemy". That's a much weaker position for them, because it accepts the reality of a timeline.

It remains to be seen what happens in the senate, and whether this becomes toothless so it can get through or keeps any force and is therefore vetoed. But either way, I think it gains real progressives nothing to force this thing down -- you seem to be assuming that their work killing it would increase the need to give them something better, and I disagree on that. I think all that would happen is that the dems would hem and haw for a while more, and then decide that they need to get a few more republicans to sign on.

At the same time that I'm saying this, it is not about political posturing for '08 to me -- that's a very dangerous position. It's about how best to set up the poliltical conversation toward withdrawal. Otherwise, we're going to get nowhere, because we're going to either perpetually have toothless bills or lose the blue dogs. The ground has to shift under them, IMO, and that's very much about messaging, though not in the election sense that most on dkos are taking it.

Rambly as usual, I'm still working on the first cup of coffee. Point is, I think your analysis is really interesting and I've been thinking on it for a few days, but I just don't agree in the end that we can do anything but pass this.

Oh wait, I do see your endorsement -

That means, IMO, that the political reality is that funding must be passed, and while this bill is far, far from enough, it also does force the issue on the country that there must be a real "when". All the republicans and blue dogs have, politically, to fall back on is that they don't want to "transmit the timeline to the enemy". That's a much weaker position for them, because it accepts the reality of a timeline.

Political reality on this what we would have made it. The Progressive Caucus was browbeaten by the Dem leadership into accepting this, ostensibly because of the threat from the Blue Dogs to bolt and join the GOP on funding.

IF the Dem leadership has said no to the Blue Dogs, what would have happened in your opinion? And how would it be worse than this?

As force this forcing the issue, ha! You and they and the Netroots wish.

This is just the first capitulation. The baseline if you will. IT gets worse from here.

I think the dem leadership absolutely should have said no to the blue dogs, and the result would have been a bill with more teeth that failed because of the blue dogs, building their position for next time. The same does not necessarily hold for the progressive dems saying "hell no" -- their position does not necessarily improve from being able to be the dealbreakers, and in the meantime the republicans get to continue to make political hay over the "divided" democrats, and continue to pretend that this thing doesn't have to end. Again, it does not necessarily increase the power of the progressives to knock this thing down, and it makes it more likely that future bills will try to get votes from elsewhere.

I'm also, please note, not saying it forces the policy issue, because you're right that it does not. It forces the language shift. And language shifts are what more major changes get built on, because over time they will make the blue dogs' position untenable.

To be clear, I don't really agree with either you or most of the netroots.

The problem is the REALITY shift - the Dem control the Congress and did nothing FOR withdrawal.

As for whom you agree with, you seem to have trouble articulating what YOU believe imo.

I am not concerned with agreement. I am concerned with understanding what you are saying.

I am not clear yet what you are saying except in bits and pieces.

I don't agree that the dems ran on withdrawal. I would love it if they had, but they didn't, by and large. They ran on "the war is fucked up", but they didn't take a strong enough stand to shift the country through their campaign toward "withdrawal" instead of "change the course" -- and that's why the blue dogs are in a position with any power whatsoever. That power has to be eroded, and the power of the emerging progressive caucus increased, for us to get a bill with teeth. The way they ran this, the real progressives -- the Barbara Lees and the Maxine Waterses -- took it on and grudgingly let it through as it is. I think that increases their role in the house, to some extent, by keeping their central position in the thing while depriving the blue dogs of a means to point to their left and say "they're not working for a real solution".

This puts "withdrawal" on the table, though weakly -- I think most voters really aren't paying enough attention to the language in it to know how weak it is. But that means that not passing the bill in the house says to the average voter "no withdrawal". It says to the blue dogs "we can break anything the progressives want by making it weak, without taking any political damage". And it says to the republicans "we can continue to control this situation while the democrats refuse to agree on anything".

The house democrats have agreed on the principle of a timetable, pushed the core idea through even while they can't agree on how strongly to arm the thing. That's not nearly enough, but I think it's a step in the right direction to a few things, mostly it makes "withdrawal" into the official position of the democrats in the house, brings it into real debate rather than as a pie-in-the-sky thing, and leaves the republicans in the position of having to strip the bill, block it, or veto it. Not passing anything only furthers the republican control of the issue, IMO -- the ball is now in their court, in both the senate and the presidency, and the democrats in the house are unified around the principle of a timetable, though not the details of how to make it happen.

They got in, largely, based on "change", including unhappiness about Iraq. They didn't effectively use that push for change to articulate a real policy of withdrawal -- that step is still being done now. That's really where we differ, is in where we think the country is in that process, I think.

HAve a good day.

As always, Armando, we don't always agree on these things but I'm glad to see you here giving your POV.

And I take some amusement in your position being arguably "farther left" than mine in this instance, though I really I think we're on the same page ideologically and just disagree on how to get there.

Happy spring.

I think the administration is about to screw the senate repubs, frankly. But we'll see.

In terms of longer term prognosis, we're probably equally pessimistic. I think we're quite a ways off from the kind of solid movement we need to get out of there. I just think this is a small movement the right direction, and you think it's a movement the wrong direction.

The Bush era will end as a party of one, and all the 2008 Presidential candidates will run against that. But the Dems will run with an exceptionally unenthusiastic activist base. Iraq being the base's main issue. The Republicans also run on 'change' but with their activist base enthusiastic and ready to defend Bush-era gains. Their base has not been abandoned.

Like in 2004 I see the Dems losing overall on the Iraq issue, because of whimpy stand-for-nothingism.

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

This was always going to be a huge uphill battle, and I've never been optimistic about our legislative options here. But I think this battle hasn't been badly fought so far -- if you look at the headline, it's basically "dems approve '08 withdrawal, bush to veto". We win if those are the lines -- not in terms of '08, but in terms of political momentum to push for real change.

IF we're going to win at all, it's going to be in fits and starts and over lines that seem crappy for a while as we build political momentum. The democrats IMO had to come out of this unified around the message of some sort of withdrawal. They did so.

But then it seems inevitable those hopes will be dashed by the Senate bill.

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

What I'm seeing, and where a lot of people here disagree with me, is that this builds some underlying political strength that we can't use yet but that will help us in the months to come.

None of this is moving as fast as any of us would like. If I appear happy about the thing, I'm really not -- bear in mind that I'm extremely unhappy that I think this was the best current option.

Sort of moot at the moment.

HAve a good day.

The problem was any Dem will do. Now we have a gaggle of AnyDems. And they ain't gonna "do us". I  remember asking the question at Kos "Do you think you're going to change these people AFTER they're in office?!" and was summarily dismissed.

The Netroots are not the be all end all either, I would bet that a small, small percentage of voters are blog saavy. That said, the last election gave the Dems a mandate (as the Nitwit in Chief said) to get us the hell out of the ME. They can't/won't do it. Now we're left to question, yet again, the integrity of the yahoos we so desperately sent to Washington, hoping against hope they'd do Mr. Smith's business. Pfffffft.

If the goal is to have Bush veto a bill then it was critical to start with as strong a bill as possible so that when the inevitable compromises were made along the way at least at the end Bush would need to veto. The bill, if it emerges, that Bush will see will be utterly toothless. To wit, he will not veto it and the Dems will have funded the Debacle.

Check.

Better to just concentrate on trying to execute the strategy Markos outlines. That accepts that the war will not end until after the 2008 election. And that is the consequence of the House Iraq supplemental. That's why I so vehemently opposed it.

Good luck with that. What I see coming down the pike in '08 is a Republican (probably Guilliani (sp)) President. At some point we have to conclude the Dems are (a) in bed with the monsters or (b) too stupid to run thier own game. Either way, we've lost.

For those of us who watch in horror from the sidelines the abject failure of the Dems, the impotence they've displayed, particularly in light of the very real fact that we may indeed be standing on the cusp of somewhere in the world detonating a nuclear bomb and all that comes after, I can only say...there is nothing to say. Words are far from adequate to begin to address it.

Good luck to Waxman, Conyers et al. I'm waiting for the news as to how they will fail to bring before congress, under oath, sworn testimony from any of these monsters. Fascinating really, the ineptitude we watch day in and day out.

Let the madness begin.

"I tire of this banal chat...now is the time on Sprockets when we dance." ~Dieter/SNL

Now, name the monster.

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."    Voltaire

Couldn't they have just not brought a bill to begin with?  Or only allowed bills that were obviously going to be hated by the Republicans?  How hard is it to stomp on private member bills for the leadership considering what the Republicans transformed the place into?

Would they even need 40% opposed?

That gives the fucktards fuel for their new warfront.

Fuck fuck fuck.

Iran may be a factor after all, A.

I'm surprised that you can even feign surprise . . . the bill just passed removed any "restraint" about Iran, and funded George to pursue "terrorism" (as defined by George) anywhere he wants, for as long as he wants.

That's what Nancy fought so hard for.  That's what Nancy got.

Who for, I ask, who for?

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."    Voltaire

This from Chris.

At the same time, those of us now favoring the bill will get what we wanted: headlines showing Democrats trying to end the war, but being thwarted by Republicans. Pelosi will look like a strong leader, and the Democratic caucus will look unified.

They may get what they wanted but the devil is in the wording, 'Pelosi will look like a strong leader' and the Democratic caucus will look unified.

That gets us exactly nowhere in the long term, when something merely looks good there is no there there, that being the case it takes nothing stronger than a feather to knock it all overboard.  If it is done with conviction instead of what is politically expedient, then you have something to sink your teeth into.

I wonder if people like Chris even think of what their words mean, it looks is often political suicide, it is so opposite of voting your conscience, they are only votes with an eye on 2008 which sends the message that they don't really care about the troops or how many more will die, they caucus with their eye on the 'prize' of 2008.

The American people put the Democrats in the Majority to stop this war, they don't care or even think about 2008 or who will win the 'prize', they want out troops home now because that is their vote of conscience, a vote the Democratic leadership simply casts away because the only future they think of is their own, no one else's, only theirs.

This has only been intensified now because the next election season started the day after the election in November.  The blame for that is widespread, the netroots are in that mix, on dailykos there were frontpage posts on November 8 about 2008, the very next bloody fuckingass day.  Some of the ugliness of the bill on the Hill right now lies at the feet of those who made the next election, the election to pay attention to and to put all of our eggs in that basket.

The bloody hands are far and wide and those hands are not just attached to those in Congress, they are also the hands of some of the bloggers.

I will not die an unlived life. Fuck em, I will not live in fear, I will live out loud and on the record.  

Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) 1-800-787-3224 (TTY)  

it is getting harder and harder not to come to the conclusion that madman in the marketplace was right about the vichy dems being irredeemable, way back when. after a certain point, the inability to even play decent politics, much less accomplish anything, becomes a pattern that suggests more than just "incompetence."

like bush in iraq, i think i'm starting to see the dems as accomplishing what they set out to do here.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

I completely agree. We are fucking hosed, and we have been for a while, and what remains to be seen IMO is whether we've passed a point of no return. If we did, I think it came quite a while before now.

You and I disagree on this particular issue, but in the overall bigger picture, yes, we are fucking hosed. I view this vote as the required political result of playing the game within a system that is utterly incapable of dealing with the problems we've got. I think the leadership and the progressives got the best they could given where the party is right now. The party is broken, and it wasn't fixed in Nov. That's not what the last elections did.

If the democratic party is the worst loss we face as a consequence of the path we're on, that seems to me to be a very, very optimistic outcome.

But whatever. We can disagree about this vote, that's not a big deal. The problem we've got going forward is a huger one and one that we've been near facing for a long time, and it remains to be seen whether we can get the system to move on the timescale we need before it all becomes rather moot.

Will the Senate pass this?  My understanding is that was part of the reason this bill was as weak as it was was the leaderships attempt to get it palitable to the Senate as well.  Will the Senate pass something even weaker?

And let's say they do and W does Veto....

sounds like Armando sees no hope for a stronger bill - I would argue that's the minimum Dems should do - if this is rejected we do NOT compromise towards the WH - we back away.  He was given a funding bill - he said no....  now we play real hardball....

but I'll believe that plays out that way when I see it....  been a very long time since anybody on my side of the DC aisle played that way... usually "we" are chasing their ever moving goalposts.

sometimes you win. sometimes you lose. and sometimes.... it rains.

Since the Dems accept the spin, they'll get hammered on this point till they give in. They won't be able to respond with the obvious truth, that getting the troops out of Iraq is supporting the troops, keeping them in the middle of a civil war is not.

The Democratic leadership 'lost' (maybe they actually want us to stay in Iraq, of course) when they accepted that Republican b.s.

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

First, if the MONEY is in the bill that comes out of mark-up, out of conference committee & then passes both chambers [clarify: if the $125 billion, or so is anywhere in the bill], Bu$h will approve it, attach "signing statements" about withdrawal, troop readiness & equipment & then spend the funds so the war machine may clank merrily on its way to the permanent bases in Iraq, production service agreements between BigOil & the current regime in Baghdad, and the continued care & feeding of KBR, Halliburton, DynCor, Fluor-Daniels, Blackwater, etc.

No, members of the House don't "represent"; they SHILL for their paymasters at BigOil, the defense contractors & AIPAC.  Hell, they're just working stiffs like the rest of us--taking their orders from the Big Boss Man.

As some blogger or commenter used to have in his sig line: "We're all just working for the Pharoah."