I'm not sensing a lot of agreement with my skepticism about the utility of Rahm Emanuel becoming Obama's first chief of staff. Part of it, I'm sure, is that people are in a celebratory, optimistic mood right now, and willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Part of it, I am even more sure, is that I hold a personal antipathy toward Rahm Emanuel because he seems to stand for most of the things that made me want to reform the Democratic Party in the first place. So, we are starting from opposite positions when it comes to giving out the benefit of the doubt on this one.
However, I still want to challenge the two main reasons why many in the blogosphere, including Open Left commenters, are arguing that Emanuel is a strong choice. First, there is a general sense that Emanuel will help Obama "get things done" in the House. Second, a commonly expressed viewpoint is that he will just be taking orders from Obama, and not making any decisions himself. I believe that Emanuel's record fails to support either claim.
"We'll either do it the easy way or the hard way. It's up to the Republicans," Reid said at a press conference today, according to Roll Call. "We will have a Sunday vote scheduled ... If they want to give us consent to have a vote earlier, we'll do that. But if they don't, we're not only going to be here, we're going to be here working."
Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a $50 billion Iraq war bill because it had a troop pullout plan, defeating Democrats' latest attempt to end the war while continuing the battle over funding it.
The Senate action stopped a Democratic proposal that had passed the House of Representatives on a largely partisan vote on Wednesday. The measure needed 60 votes to pass under Senate rules; it only got 53 votes, with 45 senators voting against.
What happened? Just yesterday, Reid threatened to make Republicans spend at least 48 hours actually filibustering the Iraq bill, and yet today nothing happened. Oh wait, something did happen: Republicans actually pushed the aggressive tactics. From TPM Election Central:
Here's what happened. Senate Dem leaders had scheduled a vote this morning on a bill that earlier passed the House and would provide $50 billion for the war but also set the goal of pulling out of Iraq by December of 2008.
But McConnell decided to try to go around Senate Dems. In a rare move he filed a motion to proceed on his own legislation, which would provide $70 billion to the war with no strings attached at all. Senate custom dictates that the Majority Leader sets the legislative agenda.
McConnell's move failed, however: The Senate Dem caucus stayed largely united and defeated McConnell's bill, 45-53
The unwillingness of Senate Democrats to push more aggressive tactics on this is bizarre, and reminiscent of their original unwillingness to campaign in favor of withdrawal back during most of in 2005. If you already won an election based on Iraq withdrawal, why are you afraid to push the debate further into the public consciousness? I suppose an argument could be made that Republicans blocking withdrawal and Iraq accountability would actually receive more media coverage on a Friday morning than a weekend-long filibuster would, but even that seems sketchy to me. Republicans will always pay a massive political price when this debate is moved front and center into the media stream, and only aggressive tactics like a weekend-long Republican filibuster of Iraq withdrawal will do that. However, for some reason, it doesn't seem like Senate Dems want to force Republicans to pay a larger political price for their intransigence on Iraq.
In addition to the regular defense appropriation request of $463 billion, the President is asking Congress to appropriate an additional supplemental request of almost $200 billion - a blank check to finance U.S. activities in Iraq - and he clearly expects that request to be repeated for years to come.
"I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President's request if that request were made in support of a change in policy that would do three things.
1. Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009.
2. Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments.
3. Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region.
"But this policy does not do that. It simply borrows almost $200 billion to give to the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Justice with no change in sight.
"As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo.
"I also have no intention of acquiescing in a policy that will result in draining the treasury so dry that it will result in the systematic disinvestment of America's future.
As long as Obey isn't willing to play along with a blank check, the supplemental simply will not be voted on in the House. This will allow for at least three more months before there is a vote on the floor.
This seems to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, it seems that there is a timeline and troop readiness standards in what Obey is looking for. Also, the extended timeline means that this might be the final supplemental Iraq appropriation fight with Bush in the White House. On the other hand, "a goal" sounds similar to the toothless bills currently being pushed by Bush Dogs and endangered Republicans alike. Also, it isn't clear if "ensure" means binding troop readiness standards, or simply promises from the Pentagon and the White House that are guaranteed to be broken.
I am intrigued and encouraged by this, but more info is needed. I like the idea of the appropriations committee bottling up the supplemental even if the entire House will not. It focuses the campaign more narrowly, for one thing, and puts the leadership in a more powerful position for another thing. Any Democrat on the appropriations committee who breaks with Obey and allows this bill to pass out of committee as a blank check should have his or her seat on the committee revoked by the leadership. Given that no one wants to lose a seat on appropriations, the Bush Dogs on the committee would be faced with a pretty big carrot and stick in order to stay in line.
The Bush Dogs on the appropriations committee are Alan Boyd, Ciro Rodriguez, Chet Edwards, and Ben Chandler. It also features supposedly anti-war Republican Jim Walsh. Without those five members, the partisan balance of the committee is 33-28 Democrat, meaning that there still isn't a conservative majority even if they all side with Republicans. If we can't block a blank check this bill in the appropriations committee, then we can't block it anywhere.
Earlier today, both here and at Dailykos, I put up posts asking people what criteria they are using to try and decide which Democratic candidate they are supporting in the 2008 primaries. In the comments, which were plentiful, one of the most common responses was that people were looking for "leadership." I want to point out that among the entire 2008 field, no one has successfully led Congress on Iraq so far in 2007. That is to say there has not been a single Democratic candidate who appears to have helped swing even one vote in either the Senate or the House to help end the war. In fact,Levin-Reid, Reid-Feingold and the Webb amendment are all actually losing votes as the year progresses.
If our vote totals on key pieces of legislation are actually going backward in Congress, then no one in the Democratic field is successfully leading on Iraq in Congress. Good leadership isn't just about proposing legislation (which all current members of Congress have done), sending out press releases announcing how you will vote beforehand (which a couple of candidates did this time), exhorting your colleagues in Congress to vote a certain way (which at least Dodd has done among current members of Congress running for President), and then casting the right votes (which pretty much everyone does now, even though none of the Senators running for President did so last year). Successful leadership is actually causing the debate to bend in your direction, and gathering support where none previously existed. According to this criteria, when it comes to the impact of the 2008 Presidential field on the Iraq fight in Congress, no one has done that. To varying degrees, they all have tried-or at least made it look like they were trying-but no one has succeeded.
Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Obama have all failed to move any votes in Congress on key Iraq legislation. As long as the debate on Iraq funding in Congress is moving backward, I don't think anyone deserves credit for leadership in that area. Tomorrow, there will be announcement of a Bush Dog fueled "bi-partisan compromise" on Iraq that won't anything to end the war, and basically we will be back at square one. In fact, the compromise will end up condemning the efforts of those who have tried to end the war. Here is how it starts:
We agree that the U.S. Congress must end the political in-fighting over the conflict in Iraq and commit immediately to a truly bipartisan dialogue on the issues we are facing.
We agree that efforts to eliminate funding for U.S. forces engaged in combat and in harm's way in Iraq would put at risk the safety and security of our service members.
"Groovy." Not only will we fail to get anything done to stop the war, we will once again be condemned by the Democratic Congress for harming the troops during our efforts to stop the war. And as this is going on, I am supposed to credit someone for leadership on the Iraq funding fight in Congress? Not gonna happen.
Some may question my focus on residual forces in the same way, and argue that neither I nor Bill Richardson have done much of anything to change Democratic positions on residual forces. I would argue that significant awareness has been raised on residual forces in both the media and among activist circles, and also that Bill Richardson's rise in both Iowa and New Hampshire is at least partially based on his no residual force position. While those are difficult assertions to prove without extensive polling and LexisNexis research, at the very least our efforts have been no less successful than efforts on the Iraq funding fight. The impact of our various attempts at leadership has been, at worst, identical.
I know people are trying. I know people are frustrated. I also don't want to denigrate anyone's efforts so far. Still, I don't want to hear about someone's leadership on a given issue until we start seeing the debate on that issue swing in our direction. When we start picking up new support in the Iraq funding fight, I will be willing to pass out credit where credit is due. Until that time, I am holding off on any praise for leadership in the Iraq funding fight.
After weeks of suggesting Democrats would temper their approach to Iraq legislation in a bid to attract more Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared abruptly Tuesday that he had no plans to do so.
The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen. Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev.
"There (are) no goals. It's all definite timelines," he told reporters of the planned legislation.(...)
When asked why Democrats won't soften the deadline, the majority leader said he doesn't have confidence Republicans are willing to challenge Bush on the war.
"I think they've decided definitely they want this to be the Senate Republicans' war, not just Bush's. They're jealous," he said with a smile.
Yes, yes, yes! Support a binding timeline, or support the war. It really is that simple, and I am thrilled Harry Reid has dropped a toothless "compromise" strategy. Non-binding timelines would have done nothing to end the war, while they would have given many Republicans cover on Iraq.
This is the way we need to operate. More like this, please.
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.
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.
The title really says it all. I'm baffled by Senator Obama's reticence in stating his views on the supplemental. Since he voted against the last supplemental, I assume he must not support this one either. So why not just say so? Or better yet, why not say so loudly and often so as to put some pressure on Republicans, Democratic leadership, and wavering Bush Dogs. Or by loudly supporting any of the options discussed here, including pushing for the Webb amendment and raising taxes to pay for any additional funding.
If we must pass some sort of compromise bill, Senator Obama (and other Senators) should push to make sure it is as tough as possible. Continuing his silence is a huge misstep on Obama's part. It's not enough for our candidates to say they can lead. They need to show us that. All of our candidates in the Senate could do more, but Senator Obama hasn't even made it to the press release phase yet.
As General Petraeus prepares to testify before Congress next week, it is clear that the increase in U.S. troops in Iraq has simply not led to political reconciliation in Iraq. Rather than continuing the escalation, we must begin the immediate redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq, in order to end this war as soon as possible. I continue to support legislative efforts requiring the Administration to begin to withdraw our troops and to complete the redeployment of combat troops in 2008, and I encourage the Congressional leadership to ensure that we will have an opportunity to vote for such legislation.
…
We will continue to press [Bush] to follow the will of the people. I will continue to do everything in my power to convince the President to change course and to work with my colleagues in the Senate to bring an end to this war as soon as possible.
"Any open-ended supplemental appropriation which does not bring a new direction to this policy in Iraq, I am going to be opposed to it,"
…
"The surge has stretched our military to the breaking point, yet violence in Iraq has increased, and political progress in Iraq has come to a standstill," Durbin said.
"I used to think this war was our worst foreign policy mistake in a generation," Durbin added.
"Now I think it may be our worst foreign policy mistake ever."
So why not you, Senator Obama? His supporters, and anyone else who would like to see him take a stand, may want to call and tell him so.
Quite a few Democrats in the House are in favor of a timeline to begin removing troops from Iraq, but are not in favor of repeatedly sending him funding bills containing timelines out of fear they will be held responsible for denying funding to "troops in the field." There are at least 78 Democrats who hold this position, as that is the number of Democrats who voted in favor of the first version of the supplemental bill to pass the House in late March, and also voted in favor of the blank check to pass the House in late May. Those 78 Democrats, combined with Bush's veto power, are the heart of the reason why Democrats in Congress have accomplished nothing when it comes to de-escalating American involvement in the war in Iraq. To use the words of one of our presidential candidates, these 78 Democrats see themselves involved in a game of chicken with Bush, and they are convinced that Bush will veto conditional funding until American troops in Iraq run out of recourses. Because these members are convinced that Bush would rather see every American in Iraq be captured due to lack of resources than agree to congressional demands for a withdrawal timeline, they blinked early on and agreed to fund the war unconditionally.
How do we change the behavior of these 78 Democrats? One possibility I have been considering today would be to craft two distinct supplemental funding bills. The first bill would appropriate some of the money directly to the armed services. The second bill would appropriates the rest of the requested funding to private contractors and the reconstruction effort only on the condition of a binding timeline for the withdrawal of 90% or more of all private contractors from Iraq. I'm not sure exactly how such a bill could be crafted, but the general idea is to force a withdrawal of the largest American military presence in Iraq without the specter of "denying funding to the troops" even entering the conversation. There are, after all, more private contractors in Iraq than there are American troops in the country:
If you think the U.S. has only 160,000 troops in Iraq, think again.
With almost no congressional oversight and even less public awareness, the Bush administration has more than doubled the size of the U.S. occupation through the use of private war companies.
There are now almost 200,000 private "contractors" deployed in Iraq by Washington. This means that U.S. military forces in Iraq are now outsized by a coalition of billing corporations whose actions go largely unmonitored and whose crimes are virtually unpunished.
Developing supplemental legislation specifically targeted at a withdrawal of private American contractors from Iraq, rather than American military from Iraq, would accomplish two goals. First, it would result in the withdrawal of just as many, if not more, Americans from Iraq than even the original supplemental bill that passed the House back in March. Second, the 78 members who are, quite frankly, too scared to keep sending conditional appropriation bills back to Bush would no longer have to worry about "denying funding to troops in the field."
I don't know if this specific idea will work. However, given that the upcoming supplemental fight is probably the last chance Congress has to de-escalate the war before Bush leaves office, we are in need of creative legislation that breaks us out of the current framing on Iraq. Personally, I want all American troops out of Iraq within the next twelve months, except for those assigned to guard the embassy. However, when faced with a choice between maintaining our current level of escalated war, and means to reduce the size of the American presence in Iraq but not remove it entirely, I will choose the latter. Given the Democratic failure to fight the "deny troops funding" frame, and given the cowardice of the 78 Democrats who flipped from the first supplemental to the second one, I am open to talking about new approaches. I think finding a way to deny funding to private contractors, who represent 55% of our presence in Iraq, is one possible route. If people have other ideas that break from our current approach in the comments, I would love to hear them.
Yesterday Harry Reid provided a perfect example of exactly the kind of reasoning that makes a lot of Democrats, including me, wary of bipartisanship.
"I don't think we have to think that our way is the only way," Reid said of specific dates [a timeline for ending the war] during an interview in his office here. "I'm not saying, 'Republicans, do what we want to do.' Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do."
Reid's unwavering stance this summer earned him critics who said he was playing politics by refusing to bargain with antiwar Republicans. In the interview, he said that his goal remains an immediate return of U.S. troops but that now is the time to work with the GOP.
I'm pretty much agnostic on strategies for ending the war. I'd support timelines, benchmarks, deauthorization, defunding, only funding withdrawal, not funding - in short, anything so long as its mandatory. Problem is, it's that mandatory part that really seems to be the sticking point in negotiations with Republicans, not to mention with President Bush. That isn't really an issue that can be worked around. Either our Congresspeople want to end the war, or they want to let Bush decided whether or not to end to end the war. If they want to let Bush decide, there's nothing they would like to do that accomplishes some or all of what Democrats would like to do. Bipartisanship is great when people on both sides of the aisle have common goals, but when they do not it is just capitulation dressed up in process.
This fall, they must use their constitutional funding power to stop the surge and implement a timetable. And if the president vetoes that bill, they should send it back to him, again and again, as many times as it takes for him to finally get the message."
As is Dodd. Bonus points for Dodd here since he's a sitting Senator.
"I led the effort a few months ago to oppose the supplemental bill and I'll do it again here. This is a conflict for which there is no military solution."
"The only appropriation Congress should pass for this war is funding for a safe and quick withdrawal. This Congress was elected to end the war in Iraq. They need to stand up to President Bush and do the job. This is an issue where leadership means no compromises.
…
"Congress should use every power at its disposal to end this war, including de-authorization and refusing to fund the war beyond what is necessary for the safe redeployment of our troops.
"We do not have to fund the war. The Democratic leadership must tell the President NO to any additional funding. No legislation is required. No vote is required. We have the money to bring the troops home. It does not require a vote.
Gravel's website doesn't appear to have been updated recently, so now we're just waiting on Senators Biden, Clinton, and Obama. Biden voted yes on the supplemental in May. Clinton and Obama both voted no, but did not release statements in advance.
This is an especially important issue for Senator Obama, since he is campaigning on the virtues of negotiation and post-partisanship. I have defended him in the past by pointing out that bipartisanship is not in and of itself an evil thing, and that it is often possible to compromise without compromising one's principles. I still believe that. But right now the Democratic leadership and the working conservative majority are giving bipartisanship a bad name by using it as a cover for capitulation. In the past, Senator Obama has said plainly that he will not vote for any more blank checks for Bush. So far, he's kept his word. So there should be no problem with issuing a statement reiterating that position.
And lets hope Harry Reid puts his goal of an immediate return of U.S. troops ahead of his desire to work with GOP.
Even opponents of the war, as Durbin calls himself, find themselves likely to vote for the extra money, he said. "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do," he said.
He voted against the war "but felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field," Durbin said. "But it's now reached a point where we have got to change the way we appropriate this money."
Though he said he is likely to approve the increased request -- it would accompany a pending request for an additional $147 billion in war funding -- Durbin said he would work to attach conditions to it that would require troops to begin coming home in the spring.
Now, in a number of instances here, the reporter for the Chicago Tribune puts words in Durbin's mouth rather than actually quoting Durbin. However, the words that are being put in Durbin's mouth are not entirely inaccurate. The Democratic strategy, in both the House and the Senate, has always been to pass whatever supplemental appropriations bills for Iraq that Bush requests, at least in terms of the amount of money he requests. Rather than deny funding altogether, the strategy is instead to attach conditions to the money that is appropriated. These conditions include, but have not been limited to, troop readiness standards, withdrawal timelines, and benchmarks for the Iraqi government. This is even the strategy of the Out of Iraq and Progressive Caucuses, who have argued that funds should be approved, but that they should only be approved on the condition that they are used for a fully funded withdrawal. The problem with this strategy is that there is a working conservative majority in Washington, D.C. that opposes any conditions begin attached to Iraq funding. So, by making it clear from the start that they intend to appropriate the money, all that the working conservative majority needs to keep doing is have Bush veto those conditions, and then uphold the veto, until enough Democrats cave and allow another blank check on Iraq to pass.
Democrats have no intention of denying funding for Iraq. Instead, they want to use funding to end the war. However, as long as Bush remains in office, and the Bush Dogs remain unmoved, the working conservative majority has the votes to do this indefinitely. If Congress is ever going to engage in a real showdown with Bush over Iraq, then we need 218 members who would rather that the war not be funded at all than for the war to be funded without any conditions attached to it. Right now, we are nowhere near 218 votes on that front. Back in May, fully 86 Democrats voted against even going for a second round against Bush, with only two Republicans defecting to the anti-war side. That means we need to swing at least 70 votes to prolong the fight this time. Note that I said "prolong" the fight, rather than win it. Even if we get 70 votes to force Bush into a third round this time, there is still no guarantee any conditions will be applied to the funding.
The money will almost certainly be appropriated, and another 1.5% of our gross national income will be sent to Iraq. We sent along another 0.7% back in May, and the DoD appropriations bill sent another 3.5% indirectly to Iraq. That makes a running total 5.7% of our gross national income spent on Iraq and the military so far this year. This is simply not sustainable. Among other things, the Soviet Empire's war in Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Empire. The longer we keep sending 5-6% of our national income down the Iraq sinkhole, the more likely it becomes for the Iraq war to destroy us. We need to get these votes, but it is a task I am not particularly optimistic about at this time. Another blank check it probably on the way. Perhaps a better strategy is to figure out how, in 2008, to punish those who allowed it to happen, and end the working conservative majority.
STATE BLOGS
