Dems push Iraq funding bill with withdrawal timetable; Bush threatens veto

[Ravenman]

@plnnr

To paraphrase Our Blunderer in Chief - “[The Democrats] have been given political capital and [they] intend to use it.”

Oh, the irony is so rich.

Back to the topic at hand, let the race to begin the Pit thread commence! I am not outraged.

[John_Mace]

@John Mace

They take out the timeline for withdrawal, keep in he stuff about “benchmarks”, and Bush signs it.

Wow. Who could ever have predicted this:

New bill in the works to fund war
DEMOCRATS AGREE TO DROP U.S. WITHDRAWAL TIMELINE

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war-funding bill Wednesday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

<snip>

Benchmarks have emerged as the most likely foundation for bipartisan consensus…

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The devil is in the details. If there aren’t any concrete provisions for troops withdrawal conditional on the benchmarks (not just threats to withhold funding from the Iraqi “government”), then the compromise is empty.

I also don’t like the weaselly attempt by both sides to shift all the blame to the Iraqis.

[elucidator]

@John Mace

Wow. Who could ever have predicted this:

well, maybe not.

– the offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.

Pelosi just went before the Democratic caucus and informed them that the story’s false, a Pelosi aide tells me…

from http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/pelosis_office.php

…which is a liberal blog, so Og alone knows if there is a grain of truth to it…

[RTFirefly]

It’s also clear from the WaPo story John Mace linked to that (a) the Bush Administration wants only carrots, and no sticks, associated with benchmarks; and (b) a number of Dems are adamantly opposed to the removal of timelines.

The bill that Bush vetoed two days ago was able to pass Congress. The question is, would a bill with toothless benchmarks pick up more Publicans than the number of Democrats it loses?

I’m still betting on a short-term extension of funding, because I think it may be the only thing that will both pass Congress and be signed by Bush.

[Ravenman]

@RTFirefly

The bill that Bush vetoed two days ago was able to pass Congress. The question is, would a bill with toothless benchmarks pick up more Publicans than the number of Democrats it loses?

Erm, so if the Democratic leadership negotiates with the White House and actually comes up with a bill Bush will sign, you think Republicans would still vote against it?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Ravenman

Erm, so if the Democratic leadership negotiates with the White House and actually comes up with a bill Bush will sign, you think Republicans would still vote against it?

The problem with a bill that caves into Bush is that the DEMS might not vote for it.

[Ravenman]

I’m still confused as to why one would think that large number of Dems would bolt their Speaker. I have a sneaking suspicion that if San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi reaches a deal with the White House, the number of Democrats who won’t go along with it probably won’t be more than 30… 40, absolutely worst case scenario. Probably all Republicans would vote for it if Bush is okay with it. I think this is a non-issue. I’ll go out on a limb and say that if there is a compromise bill, it will get at least 370 votes.

[RTFirefly]

@Ravenman

I’m still confused as to why one would think that large number of Dems would bolt their Speaker.

I don’t. I think the Speaker herself will say ‘no deal’ if the White House won’t agree to benchmarks with nontrivial consequences. I think a bill with no timeline, but good benchmarks, would, if backed by Pelosi, lose Dem support and gain GOP support, but in unpredictable amounts - but get vetoed by Bush if it manages to pass, which it might not.

[gonzomax]

The Democrats funded the soldiers. Bush rejected it.How can the Dems be culpable. ?Sign the bill and you get even more funding than Bush asked for. The ball was in his court and he took the ball and went home to sulk.

[Princhester]

@Ravenman

Under this scenario, Congress would be the body that would be refusing to negotiate. Bush could call as many meetings at the White House as he wanted, saying, “Americans all agree our troops need funding. There’s provisions of this bill I oppose. I want to negotiate with Congress, but they aren’t acting in good faith. They’d rather use the troops as pawns, risking their lives in the process, because some Congressional leaders disagree with me about what to do in Iraq. I’m willing to sit and work out a compromise, and I hope Congress would work with me in the same spirit.” Which is pretty much what he’s laying the groundwork for right now.

I think that spin is about a million times more effective than “Its BUSH, not Congress with its power of the purse, who is denying funds for the troops!” Congress would lose the debate in an instant. Danger danger, Democrats, making a calculated decision to place a purely political victory over funding for the troops is exactly what the White House is hoping."

Watch this:

Under this scenario, Bush would be the person that would be refusing to negotiate. Pelosi could ask for as many meetings at the White House as she wanted, saying, “Americans all agree our troops need funding. There’s provisions of the bill that the American people want. I want to negotiate with Bush, but he isn’t acting in good faith. He’d rather use the troops as pawns, risking their lives in the process, because Bush disagrees with the American people about the need to get out of Iraq. I’m willing to sit and work out a compromise, and I hope Bush would work with me in the same spirit.” Which is pretty much what Pelosi is laying the groundwork for right now.

I think that spin is about a million times more effective than “Its PELOSI, not Bush with his power of veto, who is denying funds for the troops!” Bush would lose the debate in an instant. Danger danger, Bush, making a calculated decision to place a purely political victory over funding for the troops is exactly what Congress is hoping."

I’m not saying that would necessarily work out any better for Congress than your scenario would for Bush, I just don’t know why you think it’s so cut and dried that Bush would come out smelling of roses while Congress would cop the blame

[Ravenman]

@retsehcnirP

emalb eht poc dluow ssergnoC elihw sesor fo gnillems tuo emoc dluow hsuB taht deird dna tuc os s’ti kniht upy yhw wonk t’nod tsuj I ,hsuB rof dluow oiranecs ruoy naht ssergnoC rof retteb yna tuo krow ylirassecen dluow taht gniyas ton m’I

:siht hctaW

This post has been REVERSED by the resreveR!!!

Great debating tactic. I’m going to use it more often. It’s cool to ignore content and play Madlibs.

[Princhester]

I’m not ignoring content at all. I’m simply pointing out that your content comprises an argument that works both ways, as is shown by how little one has to change of the wording to make it a precise fit in reverse. I genuinely don’t see why you think it only works one way.

If you simply said that your judgment call is that Bush’s spin would succeed, I might even agree. I certainly wouldn’t think you were necessarily wrong. What I don’t get is why you think Bush’s spin is “a million times more effective” when it is just one flipside of a blame game.

[BrainGlutton]

Now the House is working on a new bill, but Bush is threatening to veto that, too. Even before he’s seen it.

Meanwhile, in the event Bush should sign a funding bill but attach a “signing statement” on how and to what extent he intends to follow it, Pelosi is threatening a lawsuit. Which could lead to a definitive SCOTUS ruling on just what, if anything, these “signing statements” lawfully mean. Provided she can get a court to hear it at all – this has been tried before without success:

In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.

In order to hear an argument, a federal court would have to grant what is known as “standing,” meaning that lawmakers would have to show that Bush is willfully ignoring a bill Congress passed and that he signed into law.

The House would have to demonstrate what is called “injury in fact.” A court might accept the case if “it is clear that the legislature has exhausted its ability to do anything more,” a former general counsel to the House of Representatives, Stanley Brand, said.

Lawmakers have tried to sue presidents in the past for taking what they consider to be illegal military action, but courts have rejected such suits.

[Merijeek]

@BrainGlutton

Now the House is working on a new bill, but Bush is threatening to veto that, too. Even before he’s seen it.

He’s obviously planning on that based on the fact that more than 50% of Congress are America-hating liberals.

-Joe

[RTFirefly]

Story here.

On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq’s parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

It’s a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country’s civil conflict, and at times it’s been difficult to arrive at a quorum).

Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, Al-Rubaie said that he would present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote. Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that’s called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear.

So, what will Bush do if this nonbinding resolution is followed by the passage of a binding resolution? Will he recognize Iraq’s sovereign right to tell our occupying forces to set a schedule for withdrawal, or will he continue to decide that he’s the Decider?

IIRC, when the provisional Iraqi government first took over from the Coalition Provisional Authority back in 2004, either he or Rumsfeld was asked what we’d do if the Iraqi government told us to leave. My recollection is that whichever one of them was asked the question, said we’d leave.

Rummy’s gone, but we may be about to find out.

[Merijeek]

@RTFirefly

IIRC, when the provisional Iraqi government first took over from the Coalition Provisional Authority back in 2004, either he or Rumsfeld was asked what we’d do if the Iraqi government told us to leave. My recollection is that whichever one of them was asked the question, said we’d leave.

Rummy’s gone, but we may be about to find out.

If it does, then Dubya truly is living a charmed life. Sucks for everyone around him, of course, but he’ll be getting the easy out once again.

-Joe

[plnnr]

There was a news report this morning that a group of Republican legislators had an extraordinarily frank discussion with the President yesterday - along the lines of “Do you have any idea what you’re doing? This is killing us back home.” Of course, it is just at times like this that the President becomes even more intransigent.

[ElvisL1ves]

The story. But at least Bush does have a “secret plan to end the war”:

Davis said that administration officials convinced him there are contingency plans, but that the president declined to offer details, saying that if he announced his backup plan, the world would shift its focus to that contingency, leaving the current strategy no time to succeed.

Sadly, there is no hint in the story of Bush actually considering the possibility of his being wrong. And every day the list of names on the next Wall gets longer.

[LilShieste]

@ElvisL1ves

From the Washington Post
Davis said that administration officials convinced him there are contingency plans, but that the president declined to offer details, saying that if he announced his backup plan, the world would shift its focus to that contingency, leaving the current strategy no time to succeed.

Doesn’t this imply that the contingency plan is better than the current plan? That’s not how it’s supposed to work, right?
LilShieste