What's this I heard about Pressident Hissyfit threatening to veto every spending bill that hits his desk until he gets an Iraq war funding bill? I thought his highest duty was to this country!

Am I missing something, or wouldn't a refusal of a majority of the House of Representatives to fund the war have the same effect?

That guy Gordon Smith out in Washington is beginning to see the light. A little grass roots agitation there might well get the other vote, not to mention Coleman in MN and about four others. You know what Samuel Johnson said about the prospect of being hanged in a fornight mightily concentrating the mind -- well, November 2008 is only a little more than a fortnight away in political terms.

Um, Kevin, I think there are 51 Democrats, including Bernie, in the Senate. That's why they are the majority party.

But while there are a handful of Republicans who have been critical of the war, I can't think of even a single one who'd come within a country mile of voting to defund it. Can you?

So what's Plan B?

Where Plan B should differ from Plan A -- the earlier, feeble Democratic effort to being Bush's disaster to some kind of close -- is to actually hold the votes and keep holding them -- on the same bill -- instead of sending up one measure and then rolling over at the mere threat of a veto or filibuster. If Lugar and Company wanna make speeches opposing the war, let 'em put their money where their mouth is. The GOP has a lot more to lose, given the mood of the country and the flop of the Petraeus / Crocker testimony, by going on record supporting Bush's failed occupation.

As you say, Bush can't keep vetoeing spending buills forever, nor can the GOP filibuster military spending forever. Since the public mood favors ending the war by a damn sight, the Republicans run more of a risk of being perceived as obstructionist.

I could be wrong, but even if a bill funding the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts was not passed, doesn't Chimpy have the right to move money from the other spending bills around as he sees fit?

For example, he could just order DoD to pay for the war and postpone efforts on developing newer weapons systems.

Aren't there 51 "Dems" including Bernie and Lieberman?

Of course, Lieberman would be the problem here, wouldn't he?

Glenn: The House could, theoretically, prevent a Pentagon funding bill of any kind from being passed, but they can't force a particular kind of funding bill (i.e., one with withdrawal timelines) to be passed. That takes both houses.

Plan B is: you refuse to pass anything else. You make sure only bills which meet your criteria come up for a vote anyway. (Being in the leadership lets you do that.) If for some reason you think it better to let something come up to a vote you make sure it does not pass. A bare majority can do that in the house. If the Republicans plus DINOs stop you from passing your stuff you call them out for playing politics by voting against the funds to support our troops. If you get it passed and Bush vetos it, you call him out for that and send him the same bill again or a minor varieation.

Again, if you can get it to through the legislative process you blame the people in the Congress or Senate for stopping you. If you get it though the legislative process you blame Bush for vetoing it. But you make sure those are the only options people get to vote on -- funding bills that require pulling all our people out of Iraq.

The Republicans did this all the time. What stops the Democrats. Either they don't want to end the war, or they don't understand how the game is played.

Carl: There are 49 Democrats in the Senate, plus Bernie Sanders (I) and Joe Lieberman (I). Both Sanders and Lieberman caucus with the Dems, which is why Dems control the Senate, but that doesn't make them Democrats. And Lieberman, obviously, wouldn't vote with the Dems on any kind of war defunding bill in any case.

Plan B, which is almost certainly what will happen, is that the Democrats try hard to let people know that this is Bush's war, and he won't listen to them, and wait until he's out of office, hopefully getting a Democrat in 2009 that will actually do the job.

Cynically, the war is not nearly as big of a political asset any other way. People want out, they'll likely vote D. The last thing you want is to let the Republican candidates out from the rock and hard place they're stuck between, supporting an unpopular war or totally turning on their own party. Fortunately so far, the administration is happy to let the Democrats complain and stay the course.

But I'd rather have our troops not risking their lives for no probable benefit, thanks.

Kevin, I think you just gave a very good description of the quandary the Democrats are in. If you fund the defense bill, you allow Commander-in-Chief Bush and General Petraeus to pursue the Surge you hate so much. But if you don't fund the defense bill, Bush and Petraeus will point out how you are leaving the troops in the cold with no money and no supplies to defend themselves from the terrorists in Iraq.
This would be a disaster in the 2008 elections leading to a landslide victory for the Republicans and conservatives. My suggestion is just to fund the bill supported by Bush and Petraeus and cut your losses.

So what's Plan B?

Plan B is to create a new name for "Stay the Course", et al. After tonight, it will be "Return on Success", which will last for another Friedman, when the Administration will have to resume the hard, hard work to create another new name for the same old "plan".

There is no plan B and Bush knows it. Bush knows the GOP caucus won't abandon him so the war will go on til 2009. More body bags and grief and sorrow. WTF!

Plan B is a Democrat in the White House. Nothing else is going to work. That gets you to a simple majority in the House and down to 60 from 67 in the Senate. Putting it into the 2009 Pentagon budget means the Repubs would have a hard time filibustering that, so you're down to a majority of 51 needed.

Sure, I'd like to be out sooner, but it just isn't in the cards right now. Make the Republicans pay for it in the 2008 election.

Even John Warner and Hagel are still sticking with Bush. Nuff said.

Wouldn't a possible Plan B be not even bringing a war appropriations bill to the floor?

It's not cold in Iraq, Al.

I don't suppose John Warner could be convinced to retire this week instead of finishing his term, Tim Kaine being a Democrat and all.

No, I thought not.

I know responding to the Albot is a mug's game, but this was interesting: you just gave a very good description of the quandary the Democrats are in ... if you don't fund the defense bill, Bush and Petraeus will point out how you are leaving the troops in the cold with no money and no supplies to defend themselves from the terrorists in Iraq.

But The American people don't buy what Bush "points out".

Now, the Mighty Wurlitzer will make the same claim, but the Democrats need to understand that, perceiving the failure in Iraq even if they won't admit it yet, the GOP has been prepping the Dolchstosslegende for some time.

They're going to try to pin the blame on the Democrats for Bush's failure anyway. The imperative for the Democrats is not to let Bush punt this mess into the lap of the next President. And Gar is right: The key is to refuse to pass anything else. The Democrats will have a funding bill that contains the withdrawal the American people want and demand. It's the GOP who run the greater risks in this scenario.

It would appear that Hagel is the most likely GOP Senator to go with such a proposal. He certainly comes within a mile. However, it still doesnt appear to be enough since one veto is enough to send Senators running for cover.

Senate Backs Pullout Proposal
Hagel Joins Democrats On War Funding Bill
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032700463.html

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 28, 2007; Page A01

Of course, the proposal ultimately failed but it is the closest they came.

Dodd's suggestion shouldn't necessarily be understood to imply that Democrats entirely by themselves can force the issue.

As with most such issues, the real point perhaps is to force the Republicans to vote one and all the opposite way, including the ones who know that supporting the Iraq war will hurt their re-election chances. It will provide very little cover for, say, Collins of Maine if she votes down any funding legislation that has timetables attached, and not a single Democrat will join her. And the symbolism of Mr Popularity himself, Cheney, having to pop up to break the tie would serve to cast his pall over the entire Republican caucus.

Democrats should defund the war by preventing any more funding bills from even coming to a vote.

Democratic Party partisans dislike this plan because they think Americans will blame them when W. Bush sacrifices the troops by leaving them without food and water rather than bringing them home. W. Bush is already sacrificing the troops, and if more should die because they are left without food and water and left to rot in Iraq, most Americans will blame the president.

By the by, since both Bush and Petraeus are talking timelines for withdrawing troops, it'd be nice if the so-called "liberal media" wouldn't let the inevitable Republican kvetching about timelines for withdrawing troops to pass unchallenged.

Ha!

I don't think Democrats should stop funding for the war. If they cut off funding, they'll be tarred forever with blame for defeat in Iraq. Such a tarring wouldn't be fair -- since the Bush administration set the course for defeat -- but political life is not fair, especially when Democrats don't have the noise machine that the right has.

The better strategy would be to let Bush conduct the war to please his ego for the remainder of his term, but to pass legislation requiring that every dollar spent in Iraq from now on be paid for out of taxes. Roll back Bush's deficit-causing tax cuts and impose new ones on defense contractors as necessary, and call it the "Support the Troops Funding Bill". Let Bush veto it if he wants, but if this country can't find the will to pay up to support their troops in the field, then we suck as a country.

If the Democrats want to end the war, then the best way would be to demand that Americans step up and pay for it. If the American people (who chose this war by re-electing Bush) have to pay for the war they might get a little more engaged about finding an end to it.

Wait,

Now I'm confused.

Didn't Bush already veto a funding proposal with deadlines in May?

So hasn't the Congress already done what Dodd suggested?

Is the idea that Congress should keep doing that?

What are we arguing about here?

Plan B is for Hillary Clinton to say that even though she is against GWB's Iraq policy, she cannot vote to defund the war.

In other words, more people, Americans and Iraqis, die for nothing.

How do you tell a dying human being in the desert of Mesopotamia that he is dying for the vanity of a man about six thousands of miles away and for the cowardice of his opponents.

It's a combination of grassroots organizing around the Republicans who are fence-sitters, what Mouitsas is saying, and threatening the Republicans in congress (in a discreet, off-the-record type way) with ostensibly party-neutral rules-changes in Congress, that will be practiced to threaten Republicans' incumbencies once a Democrat is in the White House and hopefully there are greater Dem majorities in Congress.

Mess around with stuff like the franking privilege- maybe just threaten to do away with it. We're the ones who will be a majority already anyway, not them. It's an above-the-boards version of the stuff Bush was doing with the DOJ. We'll keep it legal and clean.

How about supporting the war effort instead? Just a suggestion.

threatening the Republicans in congress (in a discreet, off-the-record type way) with ostensibly party-neutral rules-changes in Congress, that will be practiced to threaten Republicans' incumbencies once a Democrat is in the White House and hopefully there are greater Dem majorities in Congress.

I.e., "Come on board and help us end this Iraq war or you're going to find yourself without a job in three years."

now that hagel's not running for re-election, he might be persuaded. ditto warner.

according to tweety, bush will propose a long-term security arrangement with the iraqi government, such as it is, maybe that will scare sununu and coleman. only 13 more to go! in my dreams.

Uh, Kevin:
It doesn't take 67 votes or 60 votes or even 51 votes to simply stop funding this piece of sh** war. Just say no to funding! This is not actually very complicated!
-- Joel

Once again, like yesterday with "second tier" Democratic presidential candidates, you're wrong, wrong, wrong on Iraq, Kevin.

The magic number in the Senate is 41; that prevents cloture and blocks any funding bill that doesn't defund Iraq.

Kevin, you're wrong and Harry Reid is wrong. Ted Rall is right about Congressional Democrats.

John,

What if you think the war is a mistake and continuing the U.S. presence in Iraq is a mistake that will get more U.S. soldiers killed and cost more money and not make the U.S. appreciably more secure or achieve other significant goals?

Is supporting the war effort a good idea then? Why? So Wall Street Journal editorial writers can stop getting upset at the feckless country they're trying to inspire?

Plan B is really Plan A, which is the Democrats' strategy in a nutshell, capitulate. Plan B would be to do something different, but since Plan A is always available, it doesn't matter what Plan B is.

Democrats should filibuster new money for Iraq until Republicans allow votes on the plans to withdraw from Iraq.

Why the Democrats aren't playing hardball in this way?

I discussed this on Proviso Probe.

I came up with four possible reasons Senate Dems are being lame and not using the filibuster to negotiate on Iraq funding legislation.

1. Democrats are intrinsically cowardly.
2. Democrats think the American people are stupid and won't understand the political maneuvering.
3. Democrats believe the American people are subconsciously more pro-war than the surface level polling indicates.
4. Democrats and Republicans are playing a game of "good cop, bad cop" on us, where the elites of the country have decided to continue the occupation and the Democrats are merely creating the illusion of fighting to end the war. (The Republicans have used the same tactic on the issue of abortion. Republicans have run as anti-abortion candidates for decades and done very little to actually make abortion illegal when elected.)

How about supporting the war effort instead?

There is no war. Iraq has been occupied. Supporting the occupation means Americans killing more Iraqis. Americans killing more Iraqis pleases some Americans, but it no longer pleases most Americans, if it ever did. The majority of Americans no longer pleased Iraqis are being killed for their benefit, expect Democrats to stop the killing by defunding W. Bush's war machine. They will not hold the Democrats responsible for sacrificing the troops, that dubious honor belongs to W. Bush and the Republican Party.

Plan B should be to tell the Republicans who live by getting defense projects funded in their own states that any funds for Iraq will come out of their pet projects. That would turn a few of them in a hurry.

John Hansen wrote at 5:14 pm:

How about supporting the war effort instead? Just a suggestion.

Ha ha yeah right.

"You've covered your ass, now." ~President Bush, to a CIA briefer on Aug. 6, 2001-- when the briefer delivered the memo "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within U.S.", a memo Bush subsequently ignored. We will never forget.

It may take a few staffers and lawyers who are experts on Congress to hunker down and come up with all the ways Republicans could be screwed by rules-changes in Congress without hurting Dems. But to pull it off, you don't need a memo detailing that, all that you need it a rumor of a memo going around.

50 ways to leave Iraq (pronto)

1- House does not pass appropriations bill. End of story as all appropriations bills must originate in the House

2-40 senators filibuster Iraq appropriation bill

3-50

51 senators pass appropriation with time lines. Bush vetoes. Congress then sends him 1 month appropriation bill. Repeat as necessary

I've seen this idea mentioned in this comment thread, and I've been emailing it to my Senator, Reid and Pelosi since the Democrats rolled this spring, but I'll say it again.

The Democrats decide what bills get a vote. So they need to present a bill which provides sufficient funds to bring the troops home as quickly as possible commensurate with the troops' safety.

And they must refuse to consider any other bill.

This course of action ends the war. Hawks can complain all they like, and if the bill should get through Congress, Bush can veto it. But if the Democrats HOLD THE LINE and refuse to consider any other option, Bush must bring the troops home.

And when the wingers trot out their usual drivel about Democrats failing to support our troops, congressional Democrats respond as with one voice: "We did what we were elected to do: we passed a bill to bring the troops home. The Republicans are keeping the troops in harm's way by playing politics."

The GOP and the media would no doubt put enormous pressure on the Dems to cave, just like they did this spring. But with sufficient spine, the Dems can indeed bring the war to an end.

Unfortunately, most congressional Democrats have been awfully low on spine since January.

I'm with Glenn. The House originates spending bills and it can refuse to enact any spending without withdrawal timelines regardless of what the Senate does. If they can't get 51 votes in the Senate, then it's "the Republican'ts don't want to fund the troops" over and over from every single Democrat (and Bernie Sanders, too).

Simple. A fillibuster of spending bills requires only 41.

I like David Bailey's suggestion.

Only one problem: Carl Nyberg's number 4.

How does the house not have the ability to do to the senate and whitehouse what the house and senate could do to the whitehouse? The special power of the purse is all in the house.

It is a game of chicken, any of the three can win, or everyone can loose depending on how the wills work out.

But the real plan B is pretty obvious: wait till 2009.

For all their foaming at the mouth demanding condemnations every time MoveOn says something they don't agree with, I can't find a single instance of any consservative blogger condemning Boehner's dismissive and disrespectful remark about the price our troops are paying.

Not surprising at all.

Not a single conservative blogger stood up to condemn Bush's denial of body and vehicle armor to save money or his attempts to cut the troops' hazard pay for serving in Iraq, much less was their any anguish over Bush sending bill collectors after wounded veterans and denying them proper health care.

Shameful, shameful, are the GOPers.

I repeat my earlier point: the Congress has already passed a funding bill with deadlines in it. Bush vetoed it in May.

Unless Democrats go through this again, what else can they do but refuse to pass another funding bill, an even more extreme, less politically attractive measure?

The latest issue of Harper's (arrived today) has a piece calling for a general strike on 6 November 2007. That is, those who like what the US is doing and think the country's going in a good direction, go to work as usual. Those who do not, stay home and do not answer the phone, send email, etc.

If enough people actually did it, even inside the Beltway it might be noticed.

The war continues because the GOP and the Democrats want it to continue. I don't buy the Democratic mantra thatwe need 60 votes to cut off funding. The Democrats control the budget and the calender. Outside of Fox News there is no public support for this war and very little support for this administration.

***BULLSHIT KEVIN!!***

If 41 Democrats came together and said, "NO WAY IN HELL DO WE VOTE FOR ONE PENNY OF FUNDING FOR THIS WAR UNTIL WITHDRAW" then there is not shit that Republicans or Bush can do about it.

Hell, we don't even need the Senate. It takes *two* houses to pass funding. If the House of Representatives refused to fund Bush's war, then the troops would have to come home.

Period.

Funding bills HAVE TO originate in the House of Representatives. If the House of Representatives passes a notice of intent saying, from such and such date we will pass ONLY a bill that funds lower troop level, and from such and such date we will pass NO further funding for Iraq, then what the Senate does or does not do is moot.

Bush cannot defy this. The White House has, on previous occasions, acknowledged that the Congress has a right to cut off funding. They've dared the House of Reps to do it. Nancy Pelosi would rather run another election with Iraq as the main issue rather than take control (and responsibility) for the mess in Mesopotamia.

Doesn't a filibuster of any spending bill (the 41 option) put the Democrats in the position of withdrawing funding for the war, the issue the talk radio hats keep nattering on about Viet-Nam?

This sounds more plausible since budget reconciliations can pass with a simple majority and Bush can't veto Pentagon funding forever. Unfortunately, there's a problem: Democrats don't have a simple majority.

They do in the House.

. There are 49 Democrats in the Senate, and if you assume Bernie Sanders would join in, you're up to 50.

That's not enough. The only way to defund the war is for the Democratic leadership in the Senate to maintain absolute, 100% iron control over its own caucus and get at least one Republican to join them.

Last I checked, budget bills have to pass both Houses of Congress. The Senate can't keep rejecting Pentagon funding forever, either, and the public is against the war. War opponents in Congress only lose by flinching first (but Democrats are good at losing that way, so it'll probably happen.)

Of course, others' comments above about blocking cloture on any budget bill (before it gets around to a reconciliation) that doesn't defund Iraq are also on point, but the Senate isn't the whole of the Congress.

Hi Folks,

I've been deleted by Drum for lowercase civil opinions so I stopped correcting your inanities for a while.

Regarding funding; you act as if the President can't fight back. Ever if you managed to cut funding, the President can retaliate by vetoing ALL spending bills short of 67 votes until he gets his war funding; and who depends on spending more? Republicans or Democrats.

Look the election in 2004 was for Commander in Chief and historically speaking Bush won handily in terms of popular vote; almost even mandate levels. Congressional elections often turn on pot-hole repair. If Democrats want to run the military or select judges, stop CHEATING and win the elections specifically for that job, i.e., Presidential Elections.

TOH

How about supporting the war effort instead? Just a suggestion.

Only the brain-damaged and ineducable would even deign to ask such a stupid question, but then...consider who is asking...

Because staying a wrong course can not alter reality and make the reasons for it just.

Regarding funding; you act as if the President can't fight back.

Yeah, so you do it the way I said in my comment.

Heres how to do:

LEAD!

Yes, muster the enthusiasm in the country and congress to impeach Bush. Bush is the problem. Bush is the enemy. Bush is the device specifically and accurately manipulated by OBL himself to bring us to the absurd place. He must be removed as part of the war effort.

Let's suppose, just for argument's sake, that Congress votes with veto-proof majorities to cut off funding for the troops in Iraq, in an effort to force their withdrawal.

And then, let's further suppose that this president, just out of sheer spite, decides in his constitutional role as commander-in-chief to leave the troops in place, and simply stops sending them supplies and relief as the funds run dry -- and please, don't tell me that Chimpy McCokespoon isn't that vindictive or callous, because we all should know by now that he most certainly is quite capable of doing exactly that.

Now what are we going to do, as we watch our troops held hostage by our own president in a game of chicken with Congress?

I've wavered somewhat on this issue in the past, but I'm pretty much convinced that present circumstances firmly warrant this administration's impeachment and removal. I think it's a clash that's now become inevitable -- it's either them, or us.

Couple things:

1. As others have pointed out, this all boils down to Dem cowardice. They have all the power they need to stop this war -- just don't fund it. What they lack is the will.

2. The Dems in the Senate don't actually have 49 votes, do they, or is Tim Johnson well enough to vote now?

What the Democrats can do is impose their own timeline by funding the troops at certain dollar levels on certain dates...i.e. X dollars for October, .8x dollars for November, .6x dollars for Decemeber, etc...

If the Republicans and/or Bush refuse to go along with this approach (by filibustering it or vetoing it), then the Dems can just refuse to bring a second bill to the floor. They will have the rhetorical high ground by virtue of having already brought one bill to the floor and having it stopped by the Republicans, who will then have to explain why they filibustered/vetoed the spending bill.

The key is to force the Republicans to filibuster/veto, in which case they become the ones denying funding for the troops.

1. As others have pointed out, this all boils down to Dem cowardice. They have all the power they need to stop this war -- just don't fund it. What they lack is the will.

Yes, if only we had the will we could win in Iraq- ER- Congress.

Sheesh, Nietsche was right, we have looked in the abyss too long...

Cutting off funding will be a disaster for the Democrats. Remember Gingrich shutting down the government? It wasn't Clinton who got the blame for that.

There are too many "moderates," both Democrat and Republican, who will accept the Republican noise machine and conclude that the Democrats have voted to defund THE TROOPS. That's not the way to win in 2008.

Sorry folks, they need more votes. They need a president who's going to set a withdrawal agenda.

Congressional Democrats should keep the pressure on, force votes on the floor, but we shouldn't blame them for not having enough votes. Let the Republicans explain to the folks back home why they wouldn't vote for a withdrawal.

I'm with Donald from Hawaii.

Just love those comments saying 49 Democrats - Some Democratic Senator would have to introduce legislation to attack Iran, in order to secure Liebermann's vote - He will never vote on any issue affecting Iraq that does not agree 110% with Shrub's position.

Blue Girl, an aside - Think that Stefan, on another thread, meant that one can never watch too much Deadwood, because the jerk powers at HBO cut funding. The way they cut off Rome, Carnivale, Sopranos, and wasted a ton on John from Cincinnatti and added no other decent new programming - Of course, we all have to pay premium to watch their drek. But, to watch Deadwood helps one understand the Hearst war mongering machine.

FWIW, I am also curious in the response to frankly0's question. What's different between Dodd's proposal and what Bush vetoed in May?

Plan B, Kevin, is that the Dems at least TRY to do it, and then raise screaming hell in the 2008 campaign against the GOP for blocking them.

David in NY: That guy Gordon Smith out in Washington is beginning to see the light.

Minor correction from way up thread. Gordon Smith is from Oregon. He's also up for re-election next year so has some incentive...

Now what are we going to do, as we watch our troops held hostage by our own president in a game of chicken with Congress?

You answer your own question in the next sentence:

...I'm pretty much convinced that present circumstances firmly warrant this administration's impeachment and removal.

Yes, present circumstances certainly warrant impeachment, but we lack the votes for impeachment, and we lack the votes for impeachment because we lack the public support for impeachment. And we lack the public support for impeachment because the Dems, instead of putting a stop to the madness of the POTUS have been acting as enablers and taking heat off the POTUS.

IOW, it is going to take a game of chicken to get to impeachment, so let the games begin.

Al: "My suggestion is just to fund the bill supported by Bush and Petraeus and cut your losses."

Wow, powerful suggestion, Al. How would you prefer our losses to be cut: by IED, rocket fire, or machine-gun attack? Do promise to attend the funeral of every loss cut to please President Vainglorious?

I basically agree with Kevin's point, but there's one assumption I'm not too sure about: why is it that George W. Bush "can't veto Pentagon funding forever"? He knows that the American public won't believe he desires to abolish the U.S. Army, and he doesn't really care what happens to the troops. So why can't he just keep vetoing and assume that the Democrats will have to back down, and send him a clean funding bill, because the alternative is defunding the U.S. Army in its entirety?

Kevin wrote: "The only way to defund the war is for the Democratic leadership in the Senate to maintain absolute, 100% iron control over its own caucus and get at least one Republican to join them."

That's not true. The Senate Democrats could filibuster any legislation that funds the occupation of Iraq. Maintaining a filibuster requires only 41 votes.

Senate Democrats won't take the action necessary to defund the war. They don't want to say that to the American people, who are overwhelmingly in favor of ending the occupation and bring the troops home, so they lie and say that they can't defund the war.

Cutting off funding will be a disaster for the Democrats. Remember Gingrich shutting down the government? It wasn't Clinton who got the blame for that.

Yeah, you know why? Because the public was on Clinton's side on the issues.

Seen polls of support for Bush's folly in Iraq recently?

It is Bush's failed policies that have cost thousands of American lives, including his policies of ignoring the CIA when they warn of Osama Bin Laden's attacks and outing covert CIA agents, which got us hit in the first place and emboldened the enemy. After Petaeus spoke to Congress, someone should just have briefly recounted the facts- what the real differences are between after the surge and what going on during the few months before- and then held up a piece of paper with big numbers on it showing the number of troops that have died since January and said, "Gen. Petraeus, never before have so many been so willing to give their lives to accomplish so little." I'm really surprised no one thought of it.

We must end this war.

Plan B: Make the War in Iraq the running mate of every Republicun candidate everywhere. Dems will sweep both houses and the White House in 2008.

But that's only if Dems actually get behind a candidate rather than staying home and gazing at their navels because "their" candidate didn't get the Dem nomination.

How about supporting the war effort instead?

The thing I dislike most about being an American citizen is that I support the occuption of Iraq fiscally. Anyone who with payroll taxes is suppporting W. Bush and his mission. I detest that and would really appreciate it if the majority in Congress would stop using my taxes to kill Iraqis.

If W. Bush should leave the troops to starve and die of thirst in Iraq, it would not be worse that what we are already doing to most Iraqis, and most Americans would hold W. Bush responsible for doing it. W. Bush is Commander in Chief, it would be his decision, and his alone, to sacrific the troops.

Americans who enjoy having the military kill Iraqis will try and blame Democrats for W. Bush's sacrificing the troops, but they are no longer politically relevant. Most Americans now believe the president has already sacrificed the troops for no good reason. If W. Bush thinks they will rally round him once again by leaving the troops without food and water, he may very well lose all public support and be impeached.

So, Donald from Hawaii makes a good point. If Congress witholds Iraq occupation funding, and if W. Bush responds with the sacrificing of the troops, both the Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress will receive the popular support they need to impeach him.

Disputo understands why this scenario will not occur: Democrats have no desire to stop the war.

Kevin's idea is good. There are 51 Democrats in the Senate but Tim Johnson (from SD) hasn't been casting votes because he's been hospitalized since January.

Lieberman won't be with the Dems on this.

I think that some of the Republicans who aren't running for re-election (Warner of VA; Hagel from NE) or Repubs in potential re-election battles (Collins of ME; Smith of OR; maybe even Sununu of NH?) are prospects for holding up funding. Ideally, we need 60 or the willingness to force the Repubs to actually engage in the filibuster they are only threatening.

Yes, the House would have to act as well. But in the House Dems have the clear majority and it needn't be filibuster proof, so the threshold is actually lower.

This idea has merit. But I doubt that Reid will act this tough.

Option A.

And when that fails, as it certainly will . . . .

Option A, again.

Option A, option A, option A. The war is a tragedy of sufficient magnitude that it's worth bringing everything else to a halt. Then the question is who blinks first: Bush, the Democrats, or a sufficient number of congressional Republicans to override a veto.

Obviously, Bush will never blink, so it's a question of the Democrats out-waiting the Republicans. And it is undoubtedly high stakes --- Democrats will undoubtedly come out looking like bigger wimps than ever (and that's saying something) if they blink first. But enough is enough.

And remember, we're not talking about an emergency supplemental here. We're talking about the FY 2008 budget for the entire Pentagon. Basically, Democrats have two choices: (a) muster the votes for a bill that funds the Pentagon but defunds the war and then dare Bush to veto it, or (b) refuse to pass anything, which effectively defunds the Pentagon completely without even forcing Bush to risk a veto. Option A is what we did earlier this year, and its success depends on whether we can keep our own caucus together and find a Republican or two to side with us for several votes in a row. Pretty unlikely. Option B is electoral suicide.

Having spent the better part of eight months trying to explain this to people--and hearing, over and over again, insane shit like "Democrats only need 41 votes in the Senate to stop the war," I can say, categorically, that people still don't understand how the US Senate works.

This is not a war that can be ended by "de-funding" the war. This is a war that will end when we elect a Commander in Chief who clearly and unequivocally understands that their electoral mandate is to withdraw US troops from Iraq. As powerful as the power of the purse may seem to folks who are ignorant of the legislative process, it is the Commander in Chief that calls the shots. And right now, we have a rogue CiC who doesn't listen to his generals and who issues signing statements left and right.

But--you nutbags out there--explain how the Senate works to people who actually understand it. I'm not going to hold my breath and expect to be enlightened anytime soon.

You need to learn to think big, PR. We're talking politics. We're talking about Dems having the guts to initiate the political crisis that will lead to the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

As far as real legal power goes the house has it when it comes to funding things.

If the president starts spending money without a law to back him up, refuses to spend it as specified in the law, or fails to withdraw the troops before their tactical situation becomes too dire (which would happen very very quickly) they impeach him for illegally spending money or treason.

Then the senate gets to decide if the president is removed from office, or they let him take overt dictatorial power.

That is the ultimate end game of the house refusing to flinch. Bush can do as ordered, the senate can remove him from office, or this is no longer a nation of laws.

In the end the house can force the war to end in an entirely legal way and the president and senate can only continue it illegally.

Not that I am worried about any of this happening. It may even be well worth burning another couple thousand GIs and another few hundred billion dollars to avoid it.

Thats how you know you really badly screwed up a while ago: all the options are ridiculously bad.

Bruce is correct. This is not so much about plan B working. That would take 100% Democratic spine and GOP help. It's more about keeping this issue front and center until the next elections. Dems will be the party wanting to end the War. The GOP will be the party wanting keep the War going. Dem President. 11 GOP Senators gone. 30 GOP Congressman gone.

The liberal grassroots should have been organizing around this Petraeus presentation. There should have been demonstrations.

Plan B: break Iraq off from the rest of the DoD funding. (You know, like it's been throughout this war. Why change now?) Pass the main DoD bill. Pass an Iraq bill with timelines, that fully funds a withdrawal, just like we did in the spring. If Bush vetoes it, pass the same bill again. And again. Ad infinitum, if necessary.

This presumes we can once again talk Hagel, or Gordon Smith, or some other non-brain-dead Repub to at least abstain on the bill. Then, now that Tim Johnson's back, it would pass 50-49.

Here is the germ of an idea for a Plan B. The Dems should introduce a Support Our Troops in Iraq tax designed to fund the Iraq war costs (presently off budget emergency appropriations---the real deficit grows and W gets to point to a declining annual deficit, the whole thing is phony) as well as expanded care for returning vets in need of medical, psychiatric, counseling assistance etc. The tax, which I reckon would amount to about a 10% surtax on the total federal tax bill of everyone EXCEPT veterans who had served in combat zones. The Congress would authorize the President to use ONLY these moneys to prosecute the war. So if he wants to fund Our Troops, he has to sign a tax increase. It is truth in budgeting and a check on war making all in one, and I bet that at least 1 Republican in the Senate will have to vote for it sooner or later in order to have a prayer of being re elected.

Low-tech-cyclist is repeating the Edwards plan.

The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats look bad by sending back the same bill over and over again only to be vetoed by the ever more isolated and petulant President. Could somebody explain the conventional wisdom to me, it just doesn't sound like wisdom to me. Bush is the guy who is going to be vetoing stuff, not the Senate.

I would like to know what is wrong with the Edwards plan.

Point of clarification: reconciliation bills can't be filibustered, but appropriation bills can. The only reconciliation in this year's budget resolution is a small amount for higher education. So you've got to get 60 to pass anything.

On the idea of using the filibuster to stop an approps bill that doesn't contain a deadline, maintaining 40 votes from the majority would be just about impossible. Members would ask leadership (who would have to lead any such effort) why if it's so important to stop the bill they don't just refuse to bring it to the floor.

I think a better strategy is to just constantly send approps bills to the white house that both fund withdrawl and contain deadlines. When he vetoes it send it back immediately. Do it 50 times if you have to, and you'll never have to say you withheld funding from the troops--you can say you funded the troops but on terms the people approved in 2006, etc.

The Democrats in Congress could defund the war tomorrow and suffer little if any political fallout. The fact that they can't or won't do so shows the Democratic Party no longer has a moral compass or a finger on the pulse of the American people. This war is an abomination. I will vote for the Green Party for president in 2008. I can no longer, in good conscience, vote for a Democrat.

This isn't Bush's War any longer it's the Republicans' War. This is their choice and one they'll have to defend every day until the next election. If things go well in Irag so will they in the elections. If they don't they'll have to pay for this next phase in the fiasco.

Kevin answers Carl:

Carl: There are 49 Democrats in the Senate, plus Bernie Sanders (I) and Joe Lieberman (I). Both Sanders and Lieberman caucus with the Dems, which is why Dems control the Senate, but that doesn't make them Democrats. And Lieberman, obviously, wouldn't vote with the Dems on any kind of war defunding bill in any case.

I'm all for trying Option A, but it makes Dems look weak and whiny to introduce bills and then have them fail, which is almost certainly what would happen. Is that what we want? And what comes next after that?

Exactly, and I don’t have a plan B except to elect more Democrats. Also, I basically think that Bush and Co. (including Petraeus) should basically be called liars for continuing to conflate Iraq and al-Qaeda. I think that Democrats could drive that point home if they were to focus on it.

Another point is that there are a few Democrats, mostly Southern, like Gene Taylor in Mississippi and Boyd in Florida, who consistenly support Bush on Iraq and matters of national security. They come from conservative districts and they are safe. There is nothing Nancy Pelosi can do about them.

So, those who say the Democrats could defund the war tomorrow are incorrect. They tried and failed.

Math is math. It's hard to argue with it.

While a number of people have pointed out that Lieberman is not going to support any Democrat effort to limit the war, there's also Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein and a couple of others who just aren't willing to grow a pair and stand up to Bush, despite the fact that the political winds would be at their backs. You have to give Bush credit for one thing: he doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks about him or his policies. He just does it. The Democrats have public opinion on their side by a wide margin, but still can't figure out that this allows them to stand up to an unpopular president and his unpopular war. WTF.

Am I missing something here? Don't the Dems control what is debated?

What is lost if the Republicans filibuster a withdrawal plan? The Dems can finally show the country that a) they have a plan (no one believes it), b) for once on the Iraq debate put the Republicans on the defensive for once, and c) further tar the Republicans and Bush with their war.

Just maybe a Republican filibuster will persuade moderates the absurdity of the defending the indefensible and finally abandon the White House.

If Republicans won't let us end the war by defunding it and overriding a Bush veto or by getting rid of Bush & Cheney and then defunding it then we must destroy ALL Republicans in the '08 elections. They must be forced to suffer horrendous Armageddon-like losses.

It's the way of politics.

In any event the incoming Dem will do the job, unless it's Clinton and in that case we really don't know what "super hawk Hill" might decide.

The Democrats must embrace Plan B. There is no other option. If they lose and look weak so be it. At least they will have stood up for what is right. At least they will have upheld constitutional principles. Utter failure is the only option and we must embrace it.

Headline: Democrats Force End To War

Second Page Story: Hell Freezes Over

Obituary Page: Naderites Get A Clue

This war could be ended tomorrow. It could happen without the assistance of any legislator or judge or even the President himself. Unfortunately our citizens don't mind being led by criminals so it won't happen. U.S. soldiers should simply refuse to further serve. Walk away. Don't enlist. It is becoming ever more difficult to care what happens to a person that volunteers service in the employ of a genocidal madman. Yes, what is happening to Iraqis is deplorable. Maybe after Bush hanged their plight could be improved. But for now at least on our side of the ledger the deaths we suffer are suffered by those willingly entered in a criminal conspiracy. An undeclared preemptive war started by the telling of demonstrable lies. Who volunteers to join such an atrocity? Certainly no one deserving of our concern or care.

It is becoming ever more difficult to care what happens to a person that volunteers service in the employ of a genocidal madman.

It is becoming ever more difficult to avoid signing up to serve in the military in the GWB economy, which *shed* 4k jobs last month.

It is becoming ever more difficult to avoid signing up to serve in the military in the GWB economy, which *shed* 4k jobs last month.

Posted by: Disputo on September 13, 2007 at 9:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I suppose you could use the same logic to justify robbing banks or kidnapping children for ransom.

You need to learn to think big, PR. We're talking politics. We're talking about Dems having the guts to initiate the political crisis that will lead to the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

I prefer to think "realistically."

Despite all these pie-in-the-sky ideas that presuppose what the Senate could do, I'm shocked to see so many people are completely ignorant of reality and cannot understand even the basics of how things work.

The House is not going to send legislation to the Senate that the Senate is going to roll up into a knife and plunge into the heart of the Democratic Party. The Senate Democrats are in the majority; they are not going to introduce legislation (which is what they do because they control the legislative agenda) that they are then going to turn around and filibuster in order to stop the war.

The Senate and the House have done virtually everything that is in their power to stop the war, bring the troops home, and tie funding to benchmarks. The Republicans have used their only option as the minority party to filibuster and halt the progress of legislation to give Bush the cover he needs.

What needs to happen is that about twenty Republican Senators need to completely break with the President and tell the Democrats to go forward and they will provide the buffer between the dead-enders in the Senate. They then need to pass legislation that ties the Presidents hands, prevents further escalation of the war, and brings the troops home without cutting off their funding. That begins the isolation and unravelling of the power of the Commander in Chief to wage war, but it does not end it.

And bear in mind--the President is under no obligation to follow ANYTHING the Congress does. He has established himself as the Imperial President; until his power is sufficiently curtailed by the combined efforts of the Legislative and Judicial branches of Government, all goddamned bets are off.

That will does not exist yet. I wish it did, but it doesn't. You want to end the war? Vote for a Commander in Chief that will order the troops home. It's as simple as that.

I suppose you could use the same logic to justify robbing banks or kidnapping children for ransom.

No one is justifying anything. Maybe you haven't noticed, but crime does peak during economic downturns.

I don't know who you are referencing, PR, but I never suggested that the Dems filibuster their own legislation. In any case, that's quite a thin reed on which to hang your "the Dems have no power to end the war" hat on.

My opinion is that people talking about Democrats growing balls are talking about the wrong party. Not only do Democrats have only 49 votes in the Senate, they also do not control the House when it comes to Iraq and national security issues. There are about 10-12 percent of Democrats, mostly Southern, who vote with Bush. When it comes to those issues, they may as well be Republican. There is nothing the House leadership can do.

OTOH, Republicans cannot bring themselves to oppose Bush, even when it hurts them. They follow lockstep. Every time one of them verbally questions the President, they are quickly brought back in line. It’s pretty pitiful.

If the Democrats throw a series of tantrums or refuse to pass a budget, it’s doubtful they would improve their position. Remember what Clinton did to Gingrich and the Republicans?

Democrats did force Bush to veto a bill that would have gotten us out of Iraq. (Note that Ron Paul voted with the Republicans on that one.) Democrats have forced Republicans to be obstructionists over and over again.

Want more of the same? Vote Republican or Libertarian or Green. You’ll get more of the same.

Your revised Option A won't make the Dems look "weak and whiny" so much as it will make Bush (and the GOP minority who support him) look even more insanely stubborn, childish and unpatriotic -- which, since they ARE insanely stubborn childish and unpatriotic, is exactly what we want. Give them the rope to hang themselves -- no matter how the frantically "bipartisan" Talking Heads try to spin it, it will be obvious to the public what's happened and who is responsible.

When you elect more Democrats - say Warner or Bob Kerrey - they are more likely to join Joementum than Harry Reid. I know you guys honestly feel that a loss would be good for us, but the vast majority of Americans, including Democrat Americans, do not share the cut and run philosophy.

Step #1 is to get the votes.

How? Get Dave "diaper boy" Vitter to resign.

Senators are far too nice and congenial to do this, so it's up to the blogosphere.

Write a letter, demanding Vitter's expulsion "to clean up the stinky diaper pail that he's made of the Senate", written on a disposable diaper, and send it to your senator, Ethics committee members, etc.

When you elect more Democrats - say Warner or Bob Kerrey - they are more likely to join Joementum than Harry Reid. I

That's true--but how are you going to get Nebraska and Virginia to send anyone else to the Senate? How realistic is it to expect these states to send the ideological equivalent of someone like a Russ Feingold to the Senate? I'd love it if there were more guys like Feingold in the Senate--he is the one who SHOULD be running for President right now.

As much as I would like to see other candidates who are outside of the sphere of the "liebercrats" the fact is, at least Kerrey and Warner would caucus with the Democrats and would feel obligated to support the party.

If any Democrat fails to support the party, throw their ass out the next time around. Find more Ned Lamonts and bankroll them and support them.

But on what planet does taking a Republican from Virginia or Nebraska make anything better? Do you want to see George Allen go back to the Senate because there's some "squeamishness" over Mark Warner, for example?

I don't know who you are referencing, PR, but I never suggested that the Dems filibuster their own legislation. In any case, that's quite a thin reed on which to hang your "the Dems have no power to end the war" hat on.

That's my response to another argument, which claimed that there was a realistic chnage to end the war with 41 votes; now explain to me how anyone other than the Commander in Chief can take US troops out of a battle and bring them home.

I know everyone has this thing about Vietnam and Mike Gravel and how they "ended the Vietnam War" but cutting off the funding, but that's not what happened and that's not an honest reading of the poltiical reality. It's as dishonest then as it is now.

Do you want to see George Allen go back to the Senate because there's some "squeamishness" over Mark Warner, for example?

Well, no; minion wants George Allen back in the Senate because he agrees with Allen's policies. But then, he also thinks 20-odd percent constitutes a "vast majority." It's just Bushlogic.

chnage = chance.

That's it for tonight.

Poor Pale Rider--what a douche you are.

It's like watching chimpanzees make a salad, isn't it? Watching liberals debate is like watching people out of their element do something difficult and precise in a herky-jerky way.

Leave the management of the war to the professionals. You liberals can go worry about who looks good with a bowl haircut--Hillary or the one who wears sweaters a lot. Meanwhile, our military leaders will continue to control the battlespace and take the fight to our enemies.

When you elect more Democrats - say Warner or Bob Kerrey - they are more likely to join Joementum than Harry Reid.

Do you seriously think that any group of voters anywhere is going to send anyone to any public office, dogcatcher and above, without some sort of pledge to extract our nation from this clusterfuck? Seriously? What, exactly is the drug combination you are currently enjoying? Because I want some!

"Weak and whiny" is in the presentation, not the action.

I'm ready to give space on my blog, per Lynn Woolsey, Democratic primary challengers to "centrist" Democrats, or to Green general election challengers.

Pale Rider, I believe I first espoused the "magic 41" on this list. I'm ready to "Monkey Wrench Gang" the workings of the federal government legislative process on every bill. Period.

Oh, Norman Rogers? Go fuck yourself. Repeatedly. With a rusty implement.

There is also the committee system -- and the Democrats control that in both houses of Congress.

True -- once a bill hits the floor, it only takes a few dozen Dems to join the lockstep GOP in the House to create the necessary majority to pass any odiferous no-strings bill. In the Senate, the GOP's bar is even lower.

But that's the key, and one the GOP used to obstruct things for decades: Keep bills bottled up in Committee.

Remember how Gingrich "shut down the government" by refusing to bring funding bills up for a vote?

It's all about framing, and if the Dems can't muster enough votes to hogtie Mr. Bush, and if they had the spine for it (that's the biggest 'if' of them all), and could frame it as "we will give money to Bush only if he begins 'redeployment'" -- they could prevail.

Main thing though is to remember that the levers of Congressional power aren't just at final vote time, or in filibusters. There's huge benefit to be had in chairing the Rules committee and holding the Speakership & majority leader positions.

They should use it.

I know this may seem obvious, but I'm not quite sure I understand your thinking on option B...How is simply stone walling on the Pentagon's budget (refuse to pass anything, which effectively defunds the Pentagon completely without even forcing Bush to risk a veto) going to be electoral suicide? I guess your looking at this from the 'support our military=support our troops' meme which has certainly been the wet blanket