Troop Readiness Standards Close To Breaking Filibuster

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 17:00

Two months ago, Democrats forced an all-night debate on Jim Webb's amendment to enforce minimum periods between deployment to Iraq for American troops. This is an important piece of legislation, both because it is closer to passing than a binding timeline and because it actually has more potential to force a drawdown of troops in Iraq than a binding timeline. However, don't get me wrong, as I think Democrats should only pass funding bills with a biding timeline for complete withdrawal from Iraq. It is just that I think Bush would ignore such mandates even if there were a veto proof majority in favor of it in Congress. As Condelezza Rice has repeatedly threatened:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

Defying troop readiness standards, however, is a very different matter. Apart from $6 for a gallon of gas, if there was one thing that I imagine would cause Bush's poll numbers to drop under 20%, and send support for impeachment through the roof, it would be if Bush was violating laws on deploying troops to Iraq without giving them proper rest. Politically speaking, considering the national veneration of our military that was once again on full display this week over the manufactured fit about the MoveOn ad, it is probably the best possible thing to get Bush on record as violating if you want to completely destroy him.

Now, it appears that the Webb amendment is very close to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate:

We hear from a source familiar with ongoing Senate discussions that a few Republican Senators are considering breaking ranks with their leadership and supporting Jim Webb's troop-readiness bill, which would give troops as much time off as they spend in the war -- a measure that would slow the war down in a big way.

The source tells us that three Republicans who voted against the measure last time are now considering backing it: Senators George Voinovich, Lisa Murkowski, and Elizabeth Dole. This is significant, cause it could push the number of total "yeas" towards the magic filibuster-proof number of 60. Last time it got 56 yes votes, with seven Republicans backing it. More defections could be key, though the President would still veto the bill.

Throw in Tim Johnson, and three more Republican defections would mean 60 votes in support of the legislation. If there is still any chance for the 110th Congress to draw down the war in Iraq, it probably rests on the fight over this amendment. Already, Bush will be forced to end the escalation next summer because there are not enough fresh troops to keep it going, and this measure would restrict the amount of troops that can be used in Iraq far more.

Of course, 60 votes is still not 67, and there is not word on how much Republican support this bill would have in the House. Still, this is a major step forward, and makes me think that as long as there is another funding fight in a few months time, this might be one piece of legislation where a veto-proof majority is possible. Ten Republican defections on this matter is nothing to sneeze at, and more than half of what would be necessary to achieve 67. It might be time to hold another all-nighter on this amendment, because it seems to be a tactic to drawdown the Iraq war and "support the troops" where congressional Democrats are making real progress.

Chris Bowers :: Troop Readiness Standards Close To Breaking Filibuster

Tags: Jim Webb, Iraq, Iraq supplemental, Congress, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Troop Readiness Standards Close To Breaking Filibuster | 2 comments

Defunding Is Probably Easier (0.00 / 0)

With Obama finally saying he would vote against funding the occupation/war in Iraq unless there is a timeline for withdrawal, it seems to me that this is our best bet. We should push really hard for the rest of Congress to follow suit. Edwards has been saying "No timeline, no funding. No excuses." It seems like Democrats are starting to come around to this stance. We might still win this way. We only need 50% of the votes or some leadership spine to stop a funding bill.

If Congress does not pass a funding bill and Bush ignores the will of Congress and continues the occupation/war without funding, then this would constitute pretty obvious grounds for impeachment. I think this provides a really good high ground to stand on and force a confrontation. We have most of the American public on our side. In a confrontation, it will be hard for the Right to garner much support.

If possible, I would push defunding and let moderate Republicans desperately respond to the defunding joust by proposing the troop readiness standards. Make them beg for votes from progressive Democrats to get a funding bill passed with the Webb amendment attached.

The news item today in the Associated Press and NY Times about Iraq expelling Blackwater Security from Iraq seems like a great hook for promoting your idea of including a timeline for withdrawing American civilians (mercenaries) from Iraq in the funding bill.

From the AP article:

The presence of so many visible, aggressive Western security contractors has angered many Iraqis, who consider them a mercenary force that runs roughshod over people in their own country.
Sunday's shooting was the latest in a series of incidents in which Blackwater and other foreign contractors have been accused of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens. None has faced charges or prosecution.

There has been some good investigative articles and books written about Blackwater and other mercenary firms and this might propel them to the headlines. I doubt Americans really think it is a good idea to have lawless mercenaries in Iraq.

by: RandomNonviolence @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 22:09:39 PM UTC

Yes, but (0.00 / 0)

On the Webb text as a slam-dunk Sixpack-friendly indictment, that hasn't (so far as I'm aware) been the experience with the long-running body armor tragi-farce.

The TPM piece has more or the the same names of additional GOP supporters as the CQ piece I discussed earlier today.

The bizarre thing is that TPM talks about Jim Webb's troop-readiness bill - which, functionally, is an entirely different proposition to what I thought we were talking about, viz, an amendment to the defense authorization bill HR 1585 now on the Senate floor: a separate bill is the equivalent of a nonbinding resolution, which I thought we were past by now.

The lede starts We hear from a source... which implies a familiarity with the process not borne out by the failure to recognize the difference between bill and amendment!

(The NYT piece linked in the TPM piece adds Specter as possible recruit, who was not mentioned in the CQ piece.)

When you say

If there is still any chance for the 110th Congress to draw down the war in Iraq, it probably rests on the fight over this amendment.

that's true - but in the sense that any bill with such an amendment will be vetoed - at which point the Dems have the opportunity for crash defunding by not sending a replacement bill.

And that's a step I can't see them taking, and on which there has been no movement since the FY07 supplemental (neutered version) got signed.

But - the new thing is the kindasorta pledges (Dodd, Obama, etc) that are coming from senators saying they won't back a bill without a timetable (or weasel words to that effect).

What if the FY08 authorization bill incorporates the Webb text, but does not include a timetable?

Plus, over on the House side, we have the Progs and their July 19 letter promising to oppose another caponized bill.

Whatever texts are ultimately enacted, it would be hard for political geeks, let alone Sixpack, to take away any clear message from all of that.

by: skeptic06 @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 22:25:40 PM UTC