[Peace-discuss] Liberals amazed to discover they don't have to pay for war...

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Ending the War: Time for the Dems to Play Hardball
	by Arianna Huffington
	Posted October 25, 2007 | 06:34 PM (EST)

Taking a page from America's retailers, President Bush is getting a jump 
on the coming battle over Iraq war funding. On Monday, he added an 
additional $45.9 billion in supplemental war funding to the $150.5 
billion he'd already requested, and then turned up the heat on Congress 
to sign off on the $196.4 billion before heading home for the holidays. 
Only 60 more browbeating days until Christmas!

And you have to give Bush credit. Despite record-low approval ratings, 
he's unabashedly playing -- and winning -- the PR game on the war. By 
incrementally adding to his funding request, he made his ongoing 
plundering of our treasury to pursue his disastrous Iraq policy seem 
relatively modest. The headlines all focused on the $46 billion he's 
just added to the tab -- not the $196 billion he's really after.

And while his language about "supporting the troops," and "providing our 
troops with the help and support they need to get the job done" is well 
past its sell-by date, the Democrats have yet to reframe the funding 
debate. So Bush replays his patriotic greatest hits while the blood of 
our soldiers continues to flow -- in the process making our country not 
more, but less, safe.

The president was feeling so cocky he even pulled out the "s" word -- 
"succeed" -- that had been in cold storage for a while. "Our men and 
women on the front lines should not be caught in the middle of partisan 
disagreements in Washington, D.C.," he said. "[Congress] ought to make 
sure our troops have what it takes to succeed." Whatever that means in 
Iraq these days.

The Democrats meanwhile remain divided and confounded on how to stand up 
to the president on Iraq. House invertebrates like Steny Hoyer, who 
foolishly think ducking for cover is a winning '08 strategy, are urging 
a cautious approach, suggesting that any hardball stop-the-war efforts 
will leave red state Dems vulnerable to attacks for undermining the troops.

Senate leaders, including Carl Levin, are also treading lightly. Levin's 
latest gambit: put Bush on the installment plan, giving him only part of 
the money and forcing him to come asking for more in June, after the 
next Congressionally mandated report from Gen. Petraeus (September 
redux?). Levin's plan would also aim for a complete withdrawal from Iraq 
within nine months -- but this would only be a goal, not a date certain 
requirement.

Hey, why accomplish today what you can put off until tomorrow -- or June?

And some Democrats just seem resigned to the notion that their options 
are limited. As Henry Waxman told Politico: "If you don't have the 
votes, you don't have the votes." It's what David Sirota calls the 
"Innocent Bystander Fable" -- the idea that since Democrats don't have 
the 60 votes needed to end Senate debate or the 66 votes needed to 
override a Bush veto, the war in Iraq is out of their hands.

But the truth is, Democrats have all the votes they need to stop the war 
-- if they are willing to use the power given them by the Constitution 
to block the supplemental funding bill unless it includes a deadline for 
bringing the troops home. As Norm Ornstein told me: "Whatever the White 
House sends to the House is constitutionally merely a suggestion." The 
prerogative to bring a funding bill to the floor rests entirely with the 
majority -- which, in case Democrats have forgotten, is theirs. As for 
the Senate, Democrats there would only have to find 41 votes to block 
the supplemental funding bill.

I'm sorry for this refresher in Congressional Power 101, but Democratic 
leaders seem to need it. The White House cannot force Congress to spend 
money. Period. The end. The imperial presidency has not gone that far. 
At least not yet. So Democrats, who have the public behind them, need to 
be unequivocal that they are simply not going to continue to fund the 
war unless and until the president agrees to change course and set a 
date certain for ending it.

They need to make it clear that they are not pulling the plug on the 
troops -- indeed, they will be authorizing bridge funding for armored 
vehicles and veterans' health benefits, among other essential expenses, 
when they take up the annual defense appropriations bill in December. 
And they can make it clear that they will give the president and the 
Pentagon all the money they need to safely and responsibly bring the 
troops home.

It's a battle of wills. A test of leadership. And a contest to frame the 
debate in the public's mind.

The president took a preemptive shot across the bow on Monday, playing 
the funding-equals-troop-support card, and placing the ball squarely in 
Congress' court. Democrats can't afford to sit back on their heels and 
wait until next year to take on the president (or worse yet, have a 
replay of the 2007 supplemental funding fight and cave to the 
president's phony "before the holidays" demands).

They need to begin reframing the funding fight now -- hammering home the 
message that it's the president's obstinacy that is jeopardizing the 
well-being of our troops and the safety of our country.

This is not the time for caution and playing it safe. This is the time 
to force the president's hand.


	Sadly, Arianna, "Hardball-Playing Democrats" Is An Oxymoron
	by Paul Slansky
	Posted October 26, 2007 | 08:25 PM (EST)

The humiliating spectacle of this quivering party, returned to power 
with the express mandate of stopping this sadistic madman and instead 
contemptibly giving him whatever he wants, as if he wasn't the most 
despised man in America, is beyond nauseating. "Poor us, we don't have 
the votes to stop the war." What sickening crap! As Arianna pointed out, 
in fact they can stop the war any Goddamn time they want, and what 
they're really saying is, "We don't have the balls to stop the war. We 
stink of fear for our jobs and nothing is more important to us than 
that, certainly not mere trifles like the lives of our citizens, or the 
Constitution."

Isn't there a single member of this castrated party capable of 
explaining that cutting off funds for the war does not mean that the 
troops will be left instantly bulletless on the battlefield, but rather 
that there is going to come a time in the not-too-distant future when 
there will be no more money for weapons, and so Bush had better get the 
troops out of harm's way before that happens or whatever befalls them 
will be his fault?

How about this? Cut off funds to the Democrats. When they call or email 
asking for contributions, tell them, not a penny more for you spineless 
wimps until you stop the war! If everyone who shares my disgust actually 
did this, the war would be stopped by Christmas.

4 comments

Davis Sweet

I fear it's worse than spinelessness. Just as Bush started the war 
specifically to gain an advantage in the '04 election, these calculating 
pricks are prolonging the war specifically to gain an advantage in the 
'08 election.

How else does it make sense that they're not stopping the killing when 
they clearly have the power to do so, massive public support, and the 
most unpopular opponent ever? Balllessness doesn't cover all that.

seewhy
i've come to the same conclusion lately. i've been in the habit of 
making small contributions to various close races in other states, 
'cause the situation in my home state of alaska always seems so 
hopeless. and i get a lot of email asking for donations all of the time. 
so i will write and tell the DLCC and everyone else, i have been very 
patient but you guys aren't listening. so i am sending the money to 
codepink and kucinich, and to hell with you.

Nonamnesiac
Excellent post. You've hit the nail right on the head. Unfortunately, 
sycophant progressives are going to vote Democratic regardless of the 
fact the Democrats are giving the progressives the finger. It's not fear 
on the part of the Dems, however. The Dems believe in Bush's policies. 
They are Bushocrats. They support the war despite their election 
mandate. How else can you explain the 92-3 Senate vote sanctioning 
Bush's war budget without restriction? The whole freshman class of 
Democratic Senators voted for that funding, just as those whom they 
defeated would have voted. How else can you explain that half of the 
Democrats, including Hillary, voted for the Kyl-Lieberman attack Iran 
resolution? How else can you explain that half of the Dems voted for the 
Right to Torture Act (Military Commissions Act)? How else can you 
explain that half of the Dems voted for the two Trample on the 
Constitution Acts (Patriot Act and Protect America Act)? How else can 
you explain that half of the Dems are on the verge of voting for Trample 
on the Constitution Act 3 (FISA Reform with retroactive immunity for the 
criminal and civil violations of law by the telecom companies)? How else 
can you explain that all three Democratic frontrunners will not commit 
to withdrawing our troops and contractors from Iraq by 2013? 2013???????????

The Dems vote the same way as the Repubs, and use the 67/60 BS 
Democratic talking point to explain away their betrayal of those who 
voted them in. It's BS, because it only takes 41 votes to stop funding 
Bush's budget without restriction.

As long as the Dems know they will continue to get the vast bulk of 
progressive regardless of what the Dems do, they will continue to 
support Bush's programs.

The only way to stop this is to stop funding the Dems and let them know 
we will not vote Democratic if they insist on giving us two pro-war 
candidates in 2013.

The Republican candidate will run on a secret peace plan to have all US 
troops out of Iraq by 2013 and win.

VicPerry
Withhold money? Maybe. Will you threaten to withhold your votes in 2008 
as well? Because only a credible threat of that - credible as in, loads 
and loads and loads and loads of voters - will actually put the fear 
into them. Well?

Balzac
I won't vote for Bush-appeasers.

I'd rather see them tried for war crimes along-side Bush.

I'd vote for Kucinich, Gravel, or Colbert.

I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

Lemeritus
Seems like every time the Dems roll over -- war funding, warrantless 
wiretapping, voting to censure Freedom of Speech on the floor of the 
Senate -- I get an email or piece of mail asking for money. There's 
usually a fable attached to the pitch, something to do with having 
"them" on the run -- be strong, dig deep.

I wonder who they think I am? Who they think "we" are? Sometimes, in 
despair, I wonder if we're really the fringe, anathema to the party, 
unreasonable children tugging at the sleeves of the people we've voted 
for and trusted to carry our standard. The Republicans know where to 
find their base. Who do the Democrats play to?

Well, I'll tell you what won't be, and that's an open wallet. As someone 
suggested on a different thread, the DCCC, DSCC, and DLC can take a 
hike. In the future, my money is going directly to the people who 
represent what I believe in. We need to stop acting like party faithfuls 
and more like the powerful lobby that gets the party's attention.

jsarets
If Democrats in Congress band together to block any Iraq funding without 
withdrawal requirements and Bush is immovable, we'll eventually reach an 
impasse, and Bush will win.

As the funds run dry, we'll approach the point where we wouldn't have 
enough money to get the troops out even if the order was made. Bush will 
make it clear that he will not withdraw the troops under any 
circumstance. If Congress continues to block funding, he'll be forced to 
declare martial law.

I don't think that the anti-war constituency realizes how far Bush will 
go to continue this occupation at all costs. If it means assuming 
complete executive control of the government, all the better in his 
eyes. Bush has made it clear that, short of impeachment, the President 
holds all of the trump cards in Constitutional showdowns.

If Congress doesn't have enough votes to override a veto, then they 
don't have the votes to impeach both Bush and Cheney, and therefore they 
don't have enough votes to end this war. If they play a game of chicken 
with Bush, they'll lose, and it will be "rage and cave" all over again 
with much higher stakes.

We have checks and balances in this country, but they were only designed 
for situations where one branch of government is overwhelmingly opposed 
to another. It wasn't designed for the slightest of Congressional 
majorities to overcome a remarkably steadfast President.

The fact of the matter is that no more than 59% of Americans have ever 
supported withdrawal, and only 3% are in favor of cutting off funding. 
This is hardly a mandate for a hard-line stance against the White House 
and Congressional Republicans.

wldnswmmr
I think this analysis falls apart along the following lines: First, 
there is no necessary nexus between the cessation of funding for the 
Iraq war and "martial law" within the United States. One does not compel 
the other. If Bush chooses to impose martial law, I suppose he can try 
it. Maybe that will be the final action that actually galvanizes the 
Democrats into decisive action. Second, I have seen different poll 
numbers on the number of Americans who favor a cutoff of funding. Even 
if the number is substantially less than the 60+% who favor withdrawal 
within one year, the lower number probably represents the current state 
of their understanding of what a cutoff of funding means. Bush's 
Constitutional duty as Commander in Chief is, first and foremost, to 
protect his fighting force, and if the resources are withdrawn, it 
becomes his duty to withdraw them on an orderly timetable within the 
funding limits imposed by the appropriation. The problem is that the 
Democrats refuse to make this case to the public, so we don't really 
know how the public would react to an accurate picture of the situation 
and the respective duties of the Executive and Congress. Finally, I 
don't think there is any Constitutional principle that states that a 
thin majority in Congress has no rights against a "steadfast" president, 
and I would argue that the Framers would expect them to use this slim 
majority to rein him in.

vietveter
DON'T VOTE
IT JUST ENCOURAGES THE BASTARDS

Merg
Been there... Done that. Lets keep the trend going. At the same time, I 
do still give to orgs like VoteVets and others who are still working to 
stop the war. They make better use of my money

CatfishJohn
American democracy continues to morph into something that would be 
remarkably dispapointing to the founding fathers. 70% are against Bush's 
grimly failed oil hegemony-based war and over 80% approve SCHIP. yet in 
the face of all this political momentum for the Dems "nuance nancy" 
pelosi has taken effective and forceful leasdership "off the table" and 
as as we approach a Bush_weakened, staggering Republican Right vs, 
confident Republican Lite (i.e. Hillary) '08 campaign, the democrats 
STILL won't stand up to the by now trademark Bushco. incompetence and 
lying ... Truly cowardly are these congressional Dems...

strifeknot
The Democrats have been pusillanimous clumps of jelly for far too long.

This is why I voted for Nader in the last two elections, and will vote 
for no Democrat other than Kucinich in 2008.

FearlessFreep
You should tell the Democrats, "Unless you impeach Dubya and get out of 
Iraq, I'm voting for Nader next year! And I don't care what Eric 
Alterman says."

Raven If everyone who shares my disgust actually did this, the war would 
be stopped by Christmas."

Umm, sorry, Paul but I don't think so.

Unless you're actually thinking the telecoms and the banks and the 
warmongers are actually going to be disgusted by their creation and stop 
feeding it.

We can raise holy hell, we can vote them out - and we will.

But the money that's really feeding them isn't coming from us, Paul.

We're just peanuts to these worms.

personallydisinterested
I had no idea people were still sending them money. Ya, that has to 
stop. But the opposite is more important because they have as much money 
as they could ever wish for because they sell legislation. The dems are 
flush with money from all the down payments they have recieved from the 
healthcare industry, war mongers and other special interests. We need to 
send money to candidates that wont sell out so that they can stand a 
fighting chance against the big money candidates. The corps have their 
candidates on both sides. We should support the candidates that honestly 
want to represent us. So, send you money to Gravel, Kucinich, or Ron 
Paul. Any of these people would do a much better job than anyone of the 
purchased candidates. I'm giving $100 to Paul on Nov 5th because I think 
of the three he stands the best chance...but liberals need to realize 
that Hilary won't represent them. If dems wanted to get out of Iraq, how 
is it possible that their candidates are talking about staying until 
2013? Send your money to somebody that will fight these leeches!

NoContest
Grandma Pelosi is busy writing her autobiography - seriously, she is! 
That is Granny's priority. Getting that tome about the First Lady 
Speaker. That should be an ethics violation, Wasn't it for Gingrich?

Besides the treason factor.

marvc
I've already done that several weeks ago. I even wrote my fave -- John 
Edwards -- that I was not sending him anymore money because, he, like 
Hilliary, couldn't assure me there would be no troops left in Iraq in 
2013. Totally unacceptable answer for me. And like you, I also an 
sickened by their cowardice in the face of this bloviated bully, Bush. 
It's pretty simple: no more money for Bush's war; period.

cadaverdog
Ditto. That's been my reply also. Nothing to the Dem National Committee 
until they get off the dime, and I see some action from our elected 
representatives. I let the caller know I will support only candidates 
that I feel will act in the best interests of our country, the middle 
class working people, and single payer healthcare for all. Hey, that 
reminds me, I have to send some more money to John Edwards!

MrLion
If the Democrats on Capitol Hill were a pro sports franchise, their 
mascot would be a chicken and their team spokesperson would be Alibi Ike.

Libsrule
That is a great idea. I told the Democratic party fundraisers I would 
not give another cent until they grew a spine.

I wrote them and I emailed them and I called them. I told Boxer, 
Feinstein and Reid, that until they do something they ain't gettin a 
dime. I used to donate an amount every month. Not much but I believed in 
them.

No longer. AND we need to let them know.

I think this is a good idea.

BUT ya know what would probably happen?

The same thing that happened to Tailgunner Joe Lieberman. Support from 
the other side so long as they keep caving and being cowards.

BUT it's worth a shot.

How do we build a national movement to defund all democrats?

bobsmith
Paul, you nailed it.

longislandlol
O.K. -- the dems have bought in to the repub fear facter- they quiver so 
they want us to-- so we voted for them because they were to be our 
messiah-and they turned out instead-to be our mess!

texanna
It used to be that when Shrub came on the TV I had to turn it off before 
I threw something through the screen. Now, it's Nancy or Harry or Steny 
or any of the "leadership". These people are more despicable than Shrub, 
as far as I'm concerned! They won our votes by telling us they 
understood and would get the job done. At least with Shrub we knew when 
his mouth was moving he was lying. The Demnuts -- they really screwed us 
over!

jmpurser
I'd like to find some Democrats that WEREN'T playing ball with the GOP.

Steamboater
Slansky is so right. The democrats and Pelosi in particular has stalled 
doing anything at really stopping this war. An irrational fear rules the 
democrats, fear of a backlash from voters when the polls show that most 
voters want this war over with and pronto. Hillary Clinton has avoided 
answering to the press, not only about the definifion of waterboarding, 
but how she would end this war. So much for a woman as president. She 
shames women and shames democrats. Those who support her and continue to 
contribute to democratic congressman and those in the senate are just 
cogs in the wheel of the Iraq war and only help extend the tragedy of 
the Iraq war.

Hubert
most voters want the war ended...fear of backlash...

Listen to the experts on troop withdrawal- there are better and worse 
ways to extricate ourselves from Iraq.

Politically cutting off funding would be a foolish move for the Dems- 
pressure Bush in other ways, win the White House and then end the war.

rabun666
I started boycotting the Democrats months ago and have emailed them just 
as you suggested. They must be told they will are being boycotted in 
terms of money and votes which is the only thing that a politician 
fears, votes. This has to be done en mass, repetitiously over time. Keep 
this boycott alive.

gladiatorpodolsky
Amen.

RickSp
That was essentially what I told the Democratic Party fundraiser who 
called the other day. He seemed shocked when I told him that I wouldn't 
donate another cent until my representatives start doing their jobs and 
end this needless war. He tried to get back to his script but I wished 
him a good day and hung up. Not sure it did any good, but it felt good. 
At this point I am on the verge of writing a check to Ron Paul.