Reid, Pelosi to announce ‘coordinated effort’ to end war today

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/28/reid-pelosi-to-announce-coordinated-effort-to-end-war/

Reid, Pelosi to announce ‘coordinated effort’ to end war.

The Politico’s John Bresnehan reports that tomorrow, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will “announce a new coordinated effort to force votes in July to end the Iraq war“:

Reid has already publicly declared that Senate Democrats will offer four Iraq-related amendments to the upcoming 2008 Defense authorization bill, including a proposal by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to set a firm timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring.

Pelosi is planning to announce that the House will also vote on a bill setting a new withdrawal timetable of April 1, 2008, although the details of the proposal were still up in the air at press time, according to Democratic sources. The House will consider this proposal as a freestanding bill, said the sources.

Pelosi is also planning to force a vote on a proposal by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to repeal the 2002 use-of-force resolution for Iraq.

In addition, House Democrats will push proposals to prohibit the creation of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, as well as a “readiness” initiative similar to that authored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.).

[Ghost in the Machine]

1. Let's hope they get a lot of support and can get it done.

ANY congressperson who votes to continue this war needs to be exposed, then voted out of office in the next election.

[wakeme2008]

2. Too late you have given the asshole all the money he

needs to finish his term. :grr: With a little Bush money moving he will have all the money he needs.

[babylonsister]

4. I don't know about too late; there are an awful lot of worried rethugs

who are up for reelection; they have got to know how the majority of the public feels.
All that money can be used to get the troops out of there. (Hea, don't bust my little optimism bubble, k?)

[Solly Mack]

6. I think those worried repubs will play into a different debate

taking place (from last time) as time progresses...for the reason you stated. They want to be re-elected and the public is angry.

There will be those repubs (and Lieberman) who will be die-hards - "don't mandate failure"
and those repubs that will claim - "We gave Bush and his strategy time and it's not working"

and the numbers will change - if only resulting in "just enough"

political expediency is a powerful motivator

There's always hope, babylonsister

Our story hasn't been written yet

[bigtree]

9. the funds in that supplemental were reported to be limited to the end of the year

a lot of the money isn't even in Iraq, there is veteran money . . .

Those funds certainly did NOT cover Bush until the end of his term,

[AndyA]

3. And I wonder just how hard Reid and Pelosi plan on fighting for any of this.

Will they cave in under pressure from the minority group?

If recent experience is a good indicator, this will be a waste of time.

Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, you need to put impeachment on the table. Serve it up to Bush, Cheney, and Gonzalez. The Democratic Party and our country will never be able to move forward as long as these criminals are in office. They will hinder and attempt to stop you at every turn.

You will accomplish nothing until all of these people are gone.

You know what you must do. DO IT. And do it quickly. Our troops are still dying. Americans without health coverage are still dying. Children are still getting a second rate or third rate education. Every day you allow these criminals to remain in office is an insult to the American people, the American way, and an affront to the Constitution.

[bigtree]

11. they only have their two votes between them

and you will see the majority of Democrats voting along with them to pass these bills. The republicans are the ones who have been standing in the way of a compromise which would overcome Bush's veto.

Legislatively, Reid and Pelosi have done as much as the present makeup of Democrats would bear. That effort has enjoyed unified support from Democrats and unified opposition from republicans.

[WinkyDink]

5. Is there anything LAMER than "planning to announce"?? Ooohhh, Bushco is SHAKING!

[ThomWV]

7. The only way to end that war is to remove Bush from office. IMPEACH!

[npincus]

8. Sweet Lord, let it be so.

[waiting for hope]

10. I liked this one best:

"Pelosi is also planning to force a vote on a proposal by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to repeal the 2002 use-of-force resolution for Iraq."

That will a "HUGH" implications!

[Toots]

12. They still don't get it

It isn't just about the Iraq War although that is a huge factor, but it is about the Constitution and accountability. They still do not have the votes to override a veto and they never will as long as Bush* is in power. The only way to turn America back onto the right path is to hold them accountable and that means Impeachment and indictments throughout the entire Cabal. These new Extreme Court rulings are just the very tip of the iceburg..I hope they realize what they need to do before it is too late if it isn't already..

[bigtree]

16. I don't get where anyone has evidence that an impeachment would automatically end the occupation

I get the impression that they'd likely try and escalate military action in Iraq to distract from an impeachment proceeding; possibly into Iran.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. They are far too incompetent to do anything else

if they have to fight impeachment.

[lonestarnot]

18. Fucking A right!

If they won't even reveal earmark spending (only 6 in house did), then we're done. They are too high on their horse to touch and are simply killing democracy from all angles.

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. Talk to the hand Reid and Pelosi

I have heard your rhetoric before. I supported you and cheered for you. And you...caved. You could have used your power, but you played it safe--more worried about your political career than the troops. You betrayed us. We counted on you.

Talk to the hand.

[snappyturtle]

14. Exactly. How many more have died since they voted for the

supplemental? In my opinion they could have ended it then and just defunded the war. I'll believe when I see it and sooner is better than later; it's just I have little confidence in them.

[bigtree]

15. same amount have died in the face of the failure of ANYONE else

to get enough support behind ANY strategy to get Bush to end the occupation.

It's not the one, limited supplemental that's keeping them there; it's Bush and his republican enablers' refusal to support legislation containing timetables for withdrawal. The majority of Democrats voted for timetables, and are prepared and willing to do so again.

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. not exactly accurate

They sent Bush the bill--he vetoed it. They did not need to send him another one. Not one soldier would have died or been injured because of the lack of funding--they would have been brought home.

The spin--that defunding puts the troops in danger--is BS, unless Bush himself admitted that he would keep our troops there, even with no funding. And that would be criminal--on his part.

They could have ended it. They were elected to end. it.

[bigtree]

20. that strategy you describe did not have enough legislators supporting it

to carry it out. Pelosi and Reid are guided in their actions by the Democratic caucuses. The majority of Democrats favored actually crafting and passing legislation which would confront Bush at his desk instead of just sitting on their hands in an action which would have directed Bush to do NOTHING while it assumed Bush would notice or care enough about any funding shortfall to end his occupation.

That 'defunding' strategy has the same burden of generating support as any other approach to confronting Bush on Iraq. So far, there just haven't been enough Democrats willing to follow that course. There has been, however, enough Democratic support to pass legislation out of both houses containing timetables.

[Rydz777]

19. Just do it! Please. Finally. Do it! eom

[Imagevision]

21. Pelosi got the messsage, and the message is the people are pleased with her performance...

In the beginning her first complaint was her plane wasn't big enough? ok, give the lady any and all the tools she needs to function, but I want results not a fashion parade...

[MLFerrell]

22. TRANSLATION:

They're going to coordinate by holding hands whilst bending over and begging * to use lube when he fucks them in the ass this time.

[rateyes]

24. You said in one sentence what I said in the next post in

a whole paragraph.

[rateyes]

23. Cut off the damned money!!

The DEMOCRATS control the agenda. Just don't bring up any more funding bills for the war in Iraq. Reid is going to bring up the vote as AMENDMENTS to other bills. Pelosi is going to bring it up as a FREESTANDING bill.

In other words, even if BOTH houses of Congress pass it...because the legislation is not IDENTICAL, it cannot move to the President's desk for signature or veto. This is just more "bones" being tossed to the base to try to keep us on board.

And, even if both houses PASSED the same bill, it would be vetoed and cannot be overridden given the numbers in Congress.

THE ONLY WAY CONGRESS CAN STOP THIS WAR IS TO REFUSE TO BRING TO THE FLOOR A VOTE ON FUNDING THE WAR!! That takes political COURAGE from the LEADERSHIP. Which is why, it seems, it won't happen.

[mikelgb]

25. oh shit

coordinated non-binding resolutions?

you in trouble now pretzel

[PATRICK]

26. I think they are trying to

head off a troop withdrawal that will happen in 2008 largely under WH auspices to influence the election. the more they surge they more than can withdraw temporarily and I wouldn't doubt the GOP b*stards would send them right back once they won the election just to make a point. These maneuvers are gaming the situation by the GOP's rules and may not succeed in getting themselves any benefit or stop the blame intended to be shifted to them. This maybe the realm of the possible, the legislative process that the leadership thinks is its proper playing field but it is pretty woeful and dangerous when seen on its face. Exploiting the war? No, this process choice is a threat to the party. Sound legislative move? Not when the GOP controls the criminal exploitation and the base reality of being there in Iraq. Better than nothing? Open to debate. Sending signals that sound like weak alternatives quailing before the public outcry? Just shows the GOP that their obscene strategy is working.

All these second alternatives like all the patterns of the past, caving, giving points, inaction followed by resurgent weak attempts, by this point are confirming the need to eventually change our present party and legislative leadership, and end some careers- an irritating necessity we can't now afford(nor get outside of primaries and elections that themselves are hard to influence) in the current raft of crises worsened by that same leadership. When things get this bad and the patterns this long, the responsibility or possibility for responsibility lessens though not the seething public anger ready to blame them anyway for all the sins of the past and both parties.

If they can pass and enforce some of these proposals, in effect gutting Bush real long term aims in Iraq by many cuts, that result would be something. But it better happen in time and create results or none of it will matter except in whatever damage it does to the elections in 2008.

[rucky]

29. GREAT ANALYSIS!

I never was good a making rhyme or reason of political strategery, but this makes sense.

[bigtree]

27. DU's Glum

Glum on Gulliver's Travels: "We're doomed! It'll never work!"

[OzarkDem]

28. Evidence based public policy

A review of the empirical data from the past 7 years shows:

Dem leaders in Congress seldom develop proactive, substantive legislative or political strategies that are well designed or strong enough to have significant impact

Dem leaders prefer legislative and political remedies that are reactive, rather than proactive

Dem leaders in Congress feel the best approach is to wait until the GOP has completely destroyed our Constitution, our country and our economy before they should take action

[bigtree]

31. we never made that analysis in the minority

and concluded that we should just declare the administration victorious and refuse to support our Democrats in their opposition.

We do now, thanks to the poor leadership of left-leaning activists who think it's just fine to advocate their one or two proposals which have failed to generate enough support to put them into action and disparage all of the rest.

We need to put our full support behind each of these actions and knock off the cynical pouting.