Category: Congress

Congress just authorized more spending, so I ask, does anyone REALLY comprehend just how big a number a million or a billion truly are?

By Susan Cornwell

Reuters

Friday, December 14, 2007; 3:38 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Democratic-led Congress authorized more Iraq war spending on Friday, sending President George W. Bush a defense bill requiring no change in strategy after failing again to impose a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals.

The defense policy bill, approved 90-3 by the U.S. Senate, also expanded the size of the U.S. Army and set conditions on the Bush administration’s plan to build a missile defense system in Europe.

The measure already had passed the House of Representatives and now goes to Bush, who is expected to sign it into law. It authorizes Pentagon programs expected to cost $506.9 billion during fiscal 2008, which began in October.

The bill authorized another $189.4 billion for the Iraq and Afghan wars, for which Congress has already approved some $600 billion. But it does not deliver the new money. That is done by appropriations legislation at the center of a big dispute on Capitol Hill.

Bush asks, Congress delivers.

Those of us in the blogosphere continue to bemoan the fact that our elected representatives in Congress are just not getting the job done. Pelosi fails to do this. Reid can’t get that done. What’s wrong with this bunch of panty-waist Democrats that we sent to Washington to do our bidding …to take out the policies of that bastard, Bush? We empowered them and now they tell us they don’t have the votes. What’s wrong with this bunch of losers?

This pisses me off.  I mean, really pisses me off.  It’s the type of thing that gives an organization a bad name, and deservedly so.  Julia Carson’s one of the good guys on the War and Occupation of Iraq.  Period.

I’ve been reading the reports of the fact that Congressional Leaders, including Speaker Pelosi, were briefed about the CIA’s interrogation procedures and overseas detention programs.  I’ve read Matt Stoller’s comments about the mood of many people in the country, and the Congress at the time that these leaders were briefed in 2002:

“…The country went insane from 2001-2003… don’t buy that this stuff is new or restricted to our political leadership.  In all honesty, I don’t know that if I were in Pelosi’s position at that time that I would have objected.  Fear is powerful and I don’t assume that I would have done well in that environment, though I like to think that most of us have learned enough to change our relationship to human rights and authority in the last few years….Nevertheless, our collective failures, and Nancy Pelosi’s specific moral albatross, is to address this country’s use of torture. ..”

There’s More:  

Bob Herbert of the New York Times editorialized / reported recently that

a statement prepared for the Democratic majority on the Joint Economic Committee of the House and Senate warns that without a significant change of course in Iraq, the long-term cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan [the vast majority of which has gone to Iraq] could head into the vicinity of $3.5 trillion.

I am watching Senator Webb’s appearance on Meet the Press this morning and in response to Tim Russert’s playing President George Bush’s statement that Congress capitulate to his demand that the Iraq Debacle be funded without conditions, Senator Webb basically said that Congress will provide funds for Bush Iraq Debacle.

Senator Webb talks a good game, but as he has done all year, the bottom line is he will vote cede Congress’ Constitutional Spending Power. He will not vote to stand up to Bush. In the next breath he is real strong on nonbinding resolutions about Iran.

When asked by Russert about Joe Biden’s call to impeach Bush if he attacks Iran, Webb hems and haws and says that the SPENDING POWER is the way to stop Bush from attacking Iran.

Excuse me Senator Webb, IF Bush does attack Iran, basedon your statements on Iraq funding, I would expect that you will vote for funding there too.

Senator Webb is a real mess on these issues.

Matt Yglesias writes:

Dana Goldstein remarks after watching the Republicans debate that they “are terrified of the words ‘George W. Bush.’ A smart Democrat would force her or his Republican opponent to face up, as often as possible, to the legacy of his party’s leader.” . . .  I think Democrats need to worry about a possible Republican blurring strategy on Iraq especially if the Democratic nominee voted for the war. . .

Just so. What always is missing from Yglesias’ analysis on this is what the current Congress can do – stand up to Bush on funding the Iraq Debacle:

President Bush sternly pressed Democrats to approve money to fund the Iraq war “without strings and without delay” before leaving town for the Christmas holidays, something congressional leaders have already indicated they will not do.

I liked Harry Reid’s response:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., responded that Democrats will get troops the money they need as part of a “war strategy worthy of their sacrifices.” “Bush Republicans have indefinitely committed our military to a civil war that has taken a tremendous toll on our troops and our ability to respond to other very real threats around the world,” Reid said.

Now the hard part, just saying no. That is what Democrats need to do. It is good policy. It is good politics.

A famous US patriot once said “These are the times that try men’s souls.” At the time, he spoke of the events and circumstances surrounding the birth of a nation destined to be defined by the rights and freedoms of the people; a nation led by government of the People, by the People and for the People, where leaders could inspire the People to stand united in spite of differing opinions or particular religious influence.

The advent of the twenty-first century has marked the most severe departure from our founding principles than ever before. We stand on the brink of self-immolation, leaderless and adrift, while selfish, arrogant hypocrites steer our ship of state toward the shoals.

Should we fail now to grow resolute and united in our determination to right this ship, we fail not only ourselves but our children, and their children’s children.

It is time to look to those children for inspiration and a reminder of what we, as adults, are tasked with as parents and guardians: to create and foster an environment where children can grow to adulthood, secure in the knowledge that we have passed along the best models for ethical leadership and responsible stewardship of this nation that we know how.

Some may not believe this, but I have been bending over backwards trying to become a solid supporter of Barack Obama. I really do believe he has a bundle of political talent and generally holds sound views on most issues. But as I have written since 2006, he has simply failed to be the type of Democratic politician we need in this political climate (See my many posts on Obama for more detail.)

Recognizing this problem, Matt Yglesias defends Obama:

I also think I should take my hat off to Hillary Clinton’s campaign — I think this has been less a failure on Obama’s part, then cleverness on Clinton’s. She’s managed to position herself on foreign policy issues in a way that signals her differences with Obama very clearly to the tiny community of specialists while completely blurring them to the broader audience of voters. I’m not sure how this can be overcome . .

I am sure how it can be done and should have been done for the past year at least – by leading on the issues NOW. As Markos writes:

I don’t know how many times I’ve written this, and maybe I’m just wasting my time, but rather than talk about leadership, Obama and Clinton could actually shows us what that leadership looks like by fighting to prevent the Senate from capitulating on Iraq.

Honestly, Yglesias, like too many Left wonks, has been oblivious to what Congress can do on Iraq. It is a terrible blind spot. For them, if it is not in a position paper, Foreign Affairs article or “big speech,” it as if it does not exist. Look at his lament:

I’m not sure how this can be overcome, but I’m sure it can’t be overcome by having writers further obscure the differences by focusing primarily on what a good job Clinton’s done of obscuring them.

The basic reality is that each and every time the candidates stake out a position on something, Clinton takes a less-liberal line. Then each and every time Obama starts getting traction with the argument that Clinton is too hawkish, she backtracks and makes the argument that there’s no real difference here. And it’s true that if you look at any one thing with a microscope, the “no difference” argument can be made to stick. But it’s the pattern that matters . . .

This is, in a word, absurd. There are no substantive differences on what to do NOW, despite attempts by Yglesias and others to pretend there are, among the Big 3. The only candidate who has made real differences on these big issues has been Chris Dodd – by leading NOW.

Unfortunately, Dodd just seems unable to get any traction. Partly because writers like Matt Yglesias pay no attention to what the Congress can do on Iraq. Maybe they would if OBAMA leads in the Senate NOW.

I have long said this. Today, I am proven right:

Senate Democrats appear ready to omit Iraq withdrawal timelines from a supplemental spending bill in hopes of clearing in December funds for the troops — but House leaders have no intentions of following suit.

Good for Speaker Pelosi and good for House Democrats. Now who do we have to worry about? The eternal capitulation leaders, Hoyer and Rahmbo. Watch out for them.

So I read this in Newsweek:

As much as Republicans and the media like to talk about the 60-vote threshold for any anti-war legislation, the fact is that if no legislation gets passed, there’s no money for war. A tough and principled Democratic caucus could force compromise on this legislation and, if none were forthcoming from the GOP, then see the war defunded by default. Either way, the public would cheer.

Looking for a angle to hate on the Great Orange Satan, I have come up with . . . plagiarism.

I have not blogged on the passage in the House of an Iraq funding bill for one simple reason – the passage of the bill is irrelevant. The Senate won’t pass it and if it does, the President will veto it.

What passes is not what matters. What does NOT pass is what matters. NO FUNDING without timlines, without a date certain for ending the Debacle.

I am sort of frustrated that this simple point, made by me for quite a while now does not seem to sink in.

But one more time for posterity:

I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.