“I can accept failure. I can’t accept not trying.”
–Michael Jordan
I think this is a good point.
What would be involved in creating a bill that would un-authorize this war? (might be a topic for a different thread)
LilShieste
Failure is not an option.
Yes, that’s exactly my point.
The Dems are going to have to get a lot more creative. Bush may not be popular, but he’s in the power position wrt the Iraq war.
In 1995, during the shutdown of the government, the Republican-led Congress passed several appropriations bills that Gingrich et al knew Clinton would veto. Clinton vetoed them, the impasse ensued, and the government was shuttered. Clinton could have allowed the government to remain open if he had signed the bills. Ergo, by this logic, Clinton is to blame for shutting down the government.
I don’t buy that. Gingrich was trying to be too smart by half, and the public called him on it. Pelosi and Reid would be wise not to make the same mistake. If they are patient, the votes for ending the war will come. If they overplay their hand, as some of their most ardent supporters are hoping they will do, I fear the wider public will turn against not only Bush but also the Democratic Congress.
Revolution could follow. (Well, not really, but I just needed a clever way to end that thought.)
One thing the Dems should do quickly is fund our troops in Afghanistan. They can go ahead and do that while they’re figuring out their next move on Iraq.
I’m betting on a short-term extension of funding, then a repeat in 60-90 days. The more times they can get the GOP Congresscritters on record for the war, the better.
I don’t think this would play out like '95, even though I’m sure that’s what Bush is counting on. The personalities are different (Dubya is nowhere near as popular as Clinton was, even after the “Republican revolution.” Pelosi is not as unpopular as Gingrich was), and more importantly, the issues are different. If the Dems can get out ahead of the rhetoric, winning the political battle should be easy. It’s an extremely unpopular war and a widely detested President. I don’t think '95 is analogous enough to be a predictor.
I kinda agree with you here. The public doesn’t (and didn’t) want to shut down the government, but they do want to get the troops out of Iraq. So the Dems should get the troops out, not try and back Bush into a corner.
And how does one accomplish both of those?
-Joe
I repeat: NINE percent of those polled think cutting off all funds is a good idea. Not even 15 percent, let alone 30. I simply fail to see how winning this political battle would be “easy” when the predictable result of what you seem to be advocating (if I’m understanding it correctly) currently has the support of fewer than one in ten Americans. Easy? Come on.
Also, you might want to keep in mind that this appropriations bill passed with only the narrowest support of Congress. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Pelosi and Reid kept trying to pass the same bill again (under the “jam it down his throat” strategy) that the votes would not be there to send it to the White House. Even Democrats have to run for reelection, and they would have to explain why they jeopardized funding for the troops instead of sitting down at the negotiating table. I repeat: nine percent.
Nine percent may want immediate defunding of the war, but 59% want some sort of timetable for withdrawal. From the latest Pew Research Center poll:
That 33% is close to the so-far fairly constant “base” 30ish% of Bush’s positives.
Yeah, that’s the $64k question. As I said before, they should withdraw the AUMF. Of course, that’s easy for me to say. 
As we get closer and closer to the next election, Republican Congresscritters are going to be scrambling to jump aboard any bill that will let them say they voted to get us out of Iraq. Until then, I guess the Dems just have to keep plugging away. Governing is not easy…
There are lots of polls out there, and I haven’t seen the on **Ravenman **is referencing (his cite goes to an editorial that doesn’t really explain the details of the poll). However, this poll is what I think is relevant to this discussion:
Even among Democracts, it’s only 51 to 41, withhold. Among Independents, it’s 38 to 52, withhold.
The resolution is not binding. Its all show. Bush can get the money and do what he wants. He is not funding the troops . Sign the damn thing and ignore the world just like he has for the last few years. Plus they are funded to July anyway. It is all noise. Bush does not want people telling him anything. The ball is in his court.
What does this mean?
I think it’s what Ed Harris said to get the Apollo 13 troops home after Nixon vetoed their oxygen funding.
It comes as standard equipment.
And I will repeat that Congress is NOT trying to cut off funding, they’re trying to RAISE it. It’s only rhetorical slight of hand that would characterize them as trying to de-fund the war at this point and THAT is what I think the Dems need to get out ahead of.
The problem is, that would be subject to Presidential veto. And veto it he would.
The one advantage the Dems have is on the funding issue, where lack of legislative success equals no funding for the war.
Yeah, but like I said while responding to Ravenman a few posts back, they’re in trouble with their primary voters if they cave. So the GOP Congresscritters up for re-election in 2008 are likely to wait until the primary filing deadline in their state or district has passed before voting to oppose the war. And those deadlines are probably anywhere from next February to next June.
So there’s no point in counting on many GOP defections until early next year. The Dems are on their own. Good for the party in terms of clearly defining their identity in a distinct and positive way in the public mind, but I’d gladly trade that to get our troops out of harm’s way sooner rather than later.
Just so I’m clear on what you’re proposing, let’s set the spin aside for a second. Are you saying that Congress should pass the same bill again, send it to the White House for a veto, and then repeat again and again, but under no circumstances should Congress pass a bill that funds the war without some sort of exit strategy? And then when the war runs out of money, the Dems should blame it on the President for vetoing the bill?
If that’s what you’re indeed proposing, when troops in Iraq run out of bullets and gas, you really think that some spin from a Democratic press flak is going to focus all the blame on Bush, and Pelosi will come out smelling like roses? Please tell me I’m missing something.
Think politics, though. Bush couldn’t say that Congress was defunding the troups. What could he complain to the American people about-- that Congress wanted to end the war? Most of us want that!!