In the midst of Wolf's talking points Pelosi lays out the sad reality that Republicans have now taken ownership of this war along with President Bush by obstructing Democratic attempts to end it.
As pointed out in the diary Pelosi hasn't given up...
BLITZER: So, are you telling your angry base out there in the Democratic Party that wants to see this war over with, wants to see the U.S. troops home, that you, as speaker, there's nothing you can do, you have to just throw your hands up and say...
PELOSI: No. I didn't say that at all.
BLITZER: ... given the legislative problems in the Senate and the president's stubborn refusal to back down, that there's nothing that you can do?
PELOSI: How could you have ever gotten that impression?
BLITZER: All right, well, tell us...
PELOSI: What I have said, for those who pay attention, is that we will hold this administration accountable time and time again for the conduct of this war in Iraq.
Buhdydharma argues that they she doesn't say that they will impeach to end the war- whereas I've long argued that we aren't ready to impeach yet. (Why not? Because we'd lose!)
Blitzer quotes John Edwards claim that Congress can simply continue to send Redeployment Legislation to the President, Pelosi explains why this isn't possible due to Republican Obstruction.
BLITZER: But you could in the House of Representatives use your power of the purse, the money, to stop funding the war if you really wanted to.
PELOSI: I wish the speaker had all the power you just describe. I certainly could do that. That doesn't bar the minority from bringing up a funding resolution. They have their parliamentary prerogative as well.
It's absolutely true that the House could create a bill that flat-out defunded the war or to refuse to send any bill that does fund the war in the same way that in 1995 Newt Gingrich refused to allow any bills on the House floor that didn't simultaneous include massive tax cuts for the rich and a date-certain balanced budget by 2002.
President Clinton's proposed budget for that year didn't meet that criteria as wasn't voted on, although some Blue Dog Democrats did come up with their own budget ideas and managed to get them through John Kascich budget committee.
The main difference today is that with it pretty much established that Bush will veto any date-certain resolutions on Iraq redeployment (just as Clinton did on a date-certain balanced budget) there are a great many Democrats who just might vote for a Republican measure that strips away any time-tables and benchmarks for redeployment and let it pass.
In short Pelosi refusing to bring up the bill isn't the end of the issue.
Pelosi: So what we have done is to send bills that limit the mission, to limit the time there, to redeploy the troops. And last week, I believe, was a turning point in the congressional debate on Iraq. I think we changed it going in by putting a bill on the president's desk.
Since May until now, we haven't been able to put something on the president's desk.
BLITZER: Because of the Senate. That's what you're saying.
PELOSI: Because of the Senate. The 60 votes.
Let's focus in on this a second. Since the Veto the Republicans have established a standing filibuster of any redeployment or timetable bills in the Senate. Edward suggestion that they keep sending the "same bill" to the President simply isn't possible if those bill can't get to the Senate floor without passing the 60 vote filibuster threshold.
But last week we were really optimistic that the Senate would at least support the readiness of our troops. The Webb resolution, Webb amendment to the defense bill was a resolution that said the guidelines of the Defense Department, the same amount of time in war, you have the same amount of time at home to regroup, to retrain, to recover, to be with your family.
BLITZER: It didn't have enough votes.
PELOSI: When they rejected that -- it had enough votes to pass and in a bipartisan...
BLITZER: But not to beat a filibuster.
PELOSI: But it did not have enough votes to be heard, to be heard so that a majority, a bipartisan majority of the Senate could have sent this to the president's desk. We have been trying to reach out, as the American people want us to do, in a bipartisan way, to build a bipartisan consensus to redeploy the troops out of Iraq safely and soon.
BLITZER: You know your base is really frustrated. Really angry...
PELOSI: I'm frustrated myself.
In order to resolve this many people including Edwards and Kucinich are suggesting a completely unworkable option. But just for a second let's assume that the Democrats could realistically take the position that they won't send any more funding bills to the President until he agrees he'll sign some type of serious redeployment and refocus of our mission in Iraq.
Eventually the existing funding bills will run out and we'll be right back into the same game of Governmental Chicken that the Gingrich Congress was forced to play with President Clinton.
You guys remember who won that fight?
It wasn't the Congress.
There is no evidence - none - that repeating the confrontation that shutdown almost the entire U.S. government twice will end any differently this time than it did last time - and this time were in the midst of a war where cutting off funding for several weeks might literally mean cutting off supply lines and support services for our troops.
You think KBR is gonna work for free? Blackwater? Triple Canopy?
Democrats have already fought tooth and nail to get our troops proper equipment, uparmored Humvees and helmets only to now turn around and say sorry - we can't be bother to make sure any of that stuff actually gets delivered while we have a pissing contest with the President.
Yeah, that'll fly.
There is the possibility we might be able to pin the blame for this on President and Republicans, but again that strategy didn't work so well for Gingrich did it?
Some have already argued with this interpretation of things after I posted it as a comment:
Irrelevant comparison to Gingrich shutdown. (2+ / 0-)
And frankly, I'm sick of people making it. Gingrich shut down the government because he wanted to cut funding to Social Security, a popular program. How is shutting down the government (if that is indeed what it comes to) because you want to cut funding to an unpopular program, i.e., a war that two-thirds of the American people hate, an equivalent?
The popularity of the issue isn't at question, it's a question of willpower between the Congress and the President. Gingrich was certain Clinton would fold. He didn't. Does anyone think Bush is gonna fold?
I don't.
He's already vetoed against Stem Cell research that will help real people while on the theory that phantom snowflake people might be harmed twice. He vetoed the timetable bill and he's about to veto health care for children on the argument that we can't afford it while we're in the middle of spending trillions to kill people in Iraq!?!
You think he's gonna blink if our soldiers have to suffer the brunt of his stubborness and go without funding for a few weeks? Not even.
As to your second point, if there is a standing filibuster (whatever that is) in the Senate against any timetable/redeployment bills, the correct response is not to cave in to the minority when two-thirds of the American people are on your side. The correct response -- if you are sincerely against this war, which I doubt Democrats are -- is to counter with a standing filibuster against any bills without a timetable/redeployment component..
Which means that no bills at all will reach the President's desk (not even the fairly modest Webb dwell time amendment) and we're back into the mexican standoff scenario that Gingrich already attempted and failed at. Let me repeat - Twice!
Now, as to the arguement that Congress is otherwise "doing nothing" as Blizter alleges.
BLITZER: But holding the president accountable, I just want you to explain, what does that mean? Besides just complaining and holding hearings? Specifically, is there anything else you can do?
PELOSI: Well, holding hearings and the oversight that we have on the corruption in contracting in Iraq, the hearings that we're holding and the harm to the readiness of our troops that the president is causing with his obstinance in this war in Iraq.
Blitzer seems ignorant to the fact that Democratic pressure has already taken a dozen scalps from former DOJ and Whitehouse personell including Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Tim Griffin, Susan Ralston, Sara Taylor, Paul McNulty, Brad Schlozman, and the Fredo-of-Darkness himself - Alberto Gonzales.
Harriet Miers and Karl Rove are on the verge of Contempt of Congress charges - which could mean being jailed in the Capital until they answer questions on the DOJ purge.
Those are all accomplishments we should be proud of seem to be much more than just a bunch of "complaints and hearings." to me.
To all of this I've heard the response that the Democrats need to make a symbolic gesture of at least forcing Republicans to actually go through with the filibuster in the Senate over troop reductions. Now Bush has already - finally - agreed to troop reductions, but we need to make the Republicans go through the process of actually filibustering against not giving the troop anything - unless we have a date-certain timetable for bringing them all home, even though we all know damn well that the filibuster has practically no chance what-so-ever of being broken.
That my friends, is called one thing : playing politics with the troops.
How many troops are we willing to risk and possibly lose in order to save the troops?
There's a reason why it was abhorrent when the Republicans pulled this kind of grand-stand stunt over Terry Schiavo and over the Medicare Drug Bill and over the Bankruptcy Bill. That kind of crap is why we kicked their assses out! So us our improvement simply to have our own bunch of hardheaded left-wing pitbulls ready to destroy our country and use our own troops as hostages simply to have our own way on an issue?
No, that's not what we voted for, at least it's not what I voted for.
I know the fact that we've been outflanked, so far, is a bummer. I know that the options we have left aren't neccesarily glamourous, dramatic or sexy, but if we can't take the direct route of redeployment and defunding (and we can't anymore) you have to use a war of attrition at hit them where they're weakest. For example : Dive into the war contracting and rip Blackwater a new one.
Attacking the warprofiteers and contractors is a good strategy IMO, it completely undermines the powerbase that is pushing this war forward in order to line thown pockets with the coins soaked in American and Iraqi blood.
The President has now called for the begining of redeployment, bogus though they may be, the momentum has shifted our our favor - we simply need to do all we can to responsibly accelerate that process.
But we also have to recognize that we will have troops in Iraq at the start, and possibly even the end, of the next Presidency, even if it's a Democrat. The goal at this point needs to be laying the groundwork with a Diplomatic Surge and working with those in the region to make that footprint as small as possible.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with the sitation - I just think that what so many people are demanding of Pelosi and Reid are very bad ideas which in the end still won't bring the troops home any faster.
I know many disagree, and that's fine. We all have the same goal, the question is how to get there rationally.
Vyan
No comments:
Post a Comment