NYT: Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Bush’s Iraq Troop Plan

[kskiska]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.

Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq. The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.

The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.

In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/washington/10capitol.html?hp&ex=1168405200&en=a11159229ac74c93&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[TroglodyteScholar]

1. Symbolic? pheh n/t

[babylonsister]

2. "Bring it on", as dimson would say. So rethugs would have to vocalize

their endorsement of a surge. Ha! Take that!

[EFerrari]

3. So, NYTs is trying to frame, then bury the Democrats.

Well done, presstitutes. And, good luck because you don't EVEN know what is coming at you.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Yes, let's not forget the shameful role NY Times played in selling the war to the public

and its continued opposition to having the US talk to Iran and Syria, all because of the Israel Lobby ties of its publisher.

[EFerrari]

14. The Wall Street Times has a lot to answer for. n/t

[Amonester]

36. Yes. Never Forget how the NEW YORK TIMES also "enabled"

this Bush/Cheney JUNTA in the 2004 election, by consciously HIDDING their crimes against the Constitution (eavesdropping without -- even retroactive -- warrants) to the voters.

That, and that criminal Judith Miller too...

[crickets]

30. Exactly.

Kudos to you for getting the point across in a lot less words than I did! :blush: Great Code Pink picture. I love those women.

[EFerrari]

39. I'm trying to join those women but they move so damn fast!

:hi:

[Jazzgirl]

4. What the f*** does symbolic mean??!!??

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. It means, for the sake of getting a couple repukes on board

we will go for something that DOES NOTHING.

No matter what the vote, or who the voters are, * will ignore it.

[EFerrari]

7. NYTs is trying to squash the public voice with discouragement

because just about every prog org I know is planning an action about this this week.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PSPS]

16. True, they can't prevent the deployment per se

but they can and should refuse to fund it. I'm sick and tired of financially underwriting the actions of a war criminal.

[babylonsister]

24. They're trying:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3081256

[Peace Patriot]

28. Congress has the SOLE power to declare war and the SOLE power to fund it.

That's the way Mssrs Jefferson, Madison, Washington and others wanted it to be--for very good reason. And Congress can therefore un-declare war, and un-fund it. As Ted Kennedy pointed out, the IWR is outmoded. No WMDs. No 9/11 connection. No more Saddam. So, what are we there for? (--but he didn't say, because the oil giants' contracts on Iraq oil haven't yet been signed, and are about to be--so their puppet government needs to be propped up to get the contracts signed, sealed and delivered, and Chevron's and Exxon-Mobile's private mercenaries can then start to defend THEIR oil fields, with the boffo profits they've taken from our public treasury and our meager wages).

Congress can change the IWR, rescind its permission for any aggressive action, and bifurcate the funding into escalation funds and current level funds. Congress has ALL THE POWER as to what our presence there is for and when it ends. All they have to do is assert that power, and if Bush/Cheney defy them, start impeachment proceedings. You say "the President is Commander in Chief...not the Speaker of the House." But the President is Commander in Chief of specific wars ONLY WITH THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS. If Congress withdraws its consent, war over. Fini! And if the President won't obey, fini to him as well.

Bush/Cheney and their oil buds have tried to create a situation that we cannot get out of. They are BLACKMAILING us with lives of US soldiers. And it is, indeed, therefore a complicated situation, but it is not one that we are too dumb to figure out and to extract ourselves from. You are very right on your final point, that we need to go back to the initial "authorization" for Chimpy to use military force against Iraq--the IWR--and amend it, or rescind it. That is clearly a possibility now--and it is what Ted Kennedy was talking about. AMEND the IWR! Prevent escalation, by bifurcating the funds. Start impeachment proceedings if they use other funds for escalation. And if there is no withdrawal within a certain period of time, rescind the IWR altogether, and remove them from office.

I think this is the strategy of those in Congress who represent the majority of Americans. The NYT is trying to head it off. They were Bush's chief propagandists for the Iraq War. So we should be very wary of their "framing" of the strategy to end this war. The strategists have an amazing broad-based consensus to stop any escalation--including many generals and war hawks. I would say, ALWAYS be wary of "Democrats bearing peace" (remember Vietnam!), and that "symbolic" resolutions could, indeed, be used to give Democrats and others "cover" with their constituencies, with nothing more coming of it, but I am not ready to make that judgment of them yet. I think we have some very smart people trying to stop this war, and we need to support their efforts. They need our support now more than ever. Is the NYT trying to weaken and divide that support? You bet they are.

[crickets]

31. The Constitution of the United States

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/articles.html

See Article 1, Section 8.

The president may be Commander in Chief once troops are deployed in a war, but the authority for that war deployment and funding thereof rests with Congress.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. It means that the resolutions would be nonbinding, simply expressing

the opinion of Congress.

[Triana]

27. Like: plug nickel (worthless) (n/t)

[Demoiselle]

6. Sounds like a straw vote to me...

Isn't that where it doesn't count but you get an idea of where the votes are? Not a bad first step. If they have overwhelming numbers it will make sense to go farther.
I don't mind that they're feeling their way a little here...Craftiness is certainly an asset in politics.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Boldness is a greater asset.

A non-binding resolution means absolutely nothing. * knows that the general public opposes the surge, and a non-binding resolution will allow his supporters to vote against the surge, incurring favor with their constituents, while doing nothing to prevent the surge.

This works in *'s favor.

A resolution with consequences would force the repukes, and fence-sitting dems, to make HARD choices - support their little war, or support their constituents. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Vote with the pResident, and jeapordize your next election, or vote with your constituents and piss off the pResident.

Even losing the vote, we'd win. Because we will NOT stop the surge, either way. We need to make them pay for it.

[w4rma]

10. Only if the strategy is absolutely correct.

Boldness with a poor strategy wastes resources. This vote will build a foundation to help solidify a good strategy that we can all get behind boldly.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. How? nt

[ananda]

13. Why symbolic? Why not real?

Sheesh!

Sometimes I just want to .. er.. symbolically shake every Dem legislator by the collar and shout:

GET OVER YOUR FEAR! GET OVER YOUR FAKKIN GREED!

DO WHAT'S RIGHT BY PEOPLE!!!!

[BayCityProgressive]

15. it better

be more than symbolic or the Dem party will fall apart.

[IndianaGreen]

17. There is a major peace march in Washington DC on January 27

It is up to us, the American people, to keep pressure on the political establishment to bring the war to an end, and bring down the Bush tyranny.

[rodeodance]

18. Rec

[rodeodance]

19. Rec

[rodeodance]

20. whow. We will really see who want to dig deeper!

.......The resolutions would represent the most significant reconsideration of Congressional support for the war since it began, and mark the first big clash between the White House and Congress since the November election, which put the Senate and House under the control of the Democrats. The decision to pursue a confrontation with the White House was a turning point for Democrats, who have struggled with how to take on Mr. Bush’s war policy without being perceived as undermining the military or risking criticism as defeatists.

“If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “That will spark real change.”

The administration continued Tuesday to press its case with members of Congress from both parties. By the time Mr. Bush delivers his speech, 148 lawmakers will have come to the White House in the past week to discuss the war, White House aides said Tuesday night, adding that most met with the president himself.

While Mr. Kennedy and a relatively small number of other Democrats were pushing for immediate, concrete steps to challenge Mr. Bush through legislation, Democratic leaders said that for now they favored the less-divisive approach of simply asking senators to cast a vote on a nonbinding resolution for or against the plan.

[rodeodance]

Democrats vow to resist troop escalation AP (wed)

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
5 minutes ago


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

WASHINGTON - Preparing to present a weary nation with his highly anticipated new war plan, President Bush faced Democrats determined to confront him over sending thousands more Americans to Iraq. Fresh troops are to be in place within three weeks.


For a little over 20 minutes Wednesday night, Bush is to explain why a gradual buildup of about 20,000 additional U.S. troops, along with other steps expected to include pumping $1 billion into Iraq's economy, is the answer for a war that has only gotten deadlier with no end in sight.

After nearly four years of fighting, $400 billion and thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost, the White House calls the president's prime-time address from the White House library just the start of a debate over Iraq's many problems.

"This is not, `Give one speech, dust your hands off and walk away,'" presidential spokesman Tony Snow said Tuesday. "This is the beginning of an important process for the American people and for the political community to think seriously about."

The address — one of the most pivotal of Bush's presidency — is the centerpiece of an aggressive public relations campaign that also will include detailed briefings for lawmakers and reporters, trips abroad by Cabinet members and a series of appearances by Bush starting with a trip Thursday to Fort Benning, Ga.

[rodeodance]

21. Democrats vow to resist troop escalation AP (wed)

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
5 minutes ago


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

WASHINGTON - Preparing to present a weary nation with his highly anticipated new war plan, President Bush faced Democrats determined to confront him over sending thousands more Americans to Iraq. Fresh troops are to be in place within three weeks.


For a little over 20 minutes Wednesday night, Bush is to explain why a gradual buildup of about 20,000 additional U.S. troops, along with other steps expected to include pumping $1 billion into Iraq's economy, is the answer for a war that has only gotten deadlier with no end in sight.

After nearly four years of fighting, $400 billion and thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost, the White House calls the president's prime-time address from the White House library just the start of a debate over Iraq's many problems.

"This is not, `Give one speech, dust your hands off and walk away,'" presidential spokesman Tony Snow said Tuesday. "This is the beginning of an important process for the American people and for the political community to think seriously about."

The address — one of the most pivotal of Bush's presidency — is the centerpiece of an aggressive public relations campaign that also will include detailed briefings for lawmakers and reporters, trips abroad by Cabinet members and a series of appearances by Bush starting with a trip Thursday to Fort Benning, Ga.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Great! Now Vote No To FUNDING! nt.

[babylonsister]

25. Kennedy's working on it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3081256

[MissMillie]

26. Well, I guess one this this does is

makes it clear to the voters in 2008 who stood with the president's war-mongering and who wanted to find a non-military solution to the problem.

[crickets]

29. I'm so sick of of newsspin.

Congressional resolutions are not, in and of themselves, symbolic. Do the words "Iraq War Resolution" ring any bells? The article finally used the word "nonbinding" later on, which is a much more acceptable way of describing the resolutions. A nonbinding resolution may not sound like much, but it puts representatives' stances on record and lays groundwork for further discussion and votes.

“If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “That will spark real change.”

Exactly.

They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.

According to the Constitution, war powers reside with Congress, not the president. Any journalist worth his salt knows this, they're just hoping their readers don't know enough to question that statement.

But the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said Congress could not supplant the authority of the president. “You can’t run a war by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate,” he said.

One the stupidest things I've ever heard a Senator say. Congress isn't discussing details of how to RUN the war in detail, just whether it's acceptable to escalate or to eventually END the war. This is one of Congress' duties and it is within their authority. It supplants nothing.

While there were a few senators who favored cutting off money for any troop increase, a handful of others expressed uncertainty about challenging the president on a potential war-powers issue.

“We have to be very careful about blocking funding for any troops because we don’t want to leave our troops short-changed,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.

NYT is muddying the waters here. Dems are worried about looking like they don't support the troops when they talk about cutting funds, NOT whether they're overstepping Congressional authority. There is no "war-powers issue" with the president--he doesn't have them, Congress does.

The newsbots are really trying hard to undermine Congressional authority on this one, aren't they? FU, NYT.

[Peace Patriot]

32. Excellent point, crickets! I agree! The NYT and the rest of the war profiteering

corporate news monopolies are trying to muddy the point that Congress and ONLY Congress has the power to declare and fund war. They can RESCIND any powers they've given Bush, and all funding. The questions is NOT, do they have the power? The question is when and how to use it? That question is complicated by the fact that the Bush Junta has placed and kept US troops in harm's way, in essence, to BLACKMAIL us into a corporate resource war. But that matter is solveable by gradual de-funding, starting with no funds for escalation. That's where Kennedy wanted to start--no funds for escalation. Others are not quite there yet, so, first, a sense of the Congress resolution, which is symbolic NOT because Congress doesn't have the power to un-declare this war and de-fund it, but as a strategy toward that end. And, since no escalation is the position of the generals who were running the war, and many war hawks, the Democrats have good backing with which to steel their own and others' spines.

[crickets]

33. Blackmail describes it well

The corporate nature of this war just sickens me. There is, as usual, a deplorable lack of adequate, unbiased news coverage. Reading an insidiously spun article like this one, from a paper that gets so much respect from the general public, just made me pop off.

The resolution is a good strategy to get the ball rolling toward ending the war. I really hope the Dems keep momentum going and Kennedy has the support he needs to get S.233 passed. :crosses fingers:

[diamidue]

34. Kennedy

I don't want to be a pessimist, but I keep wondering if Kennedy, as one of the most liberal Democrats, is being offered up as a token by the more Centrist Dems. Is he just there to pacify the left wing of the party by putting forth this bill? From what I have heard, it is not expected to have the support it needs to pass. Is this just for show? I hope not, but I have grown suspicious of everything and everyone lately.

[crickets]

35. I understand where you're coming from, but

Congress just came back in session last week. Kennedy proposed this bill within scant days, which means he had it almost ready to roll before the new representatives were even sworn in. That rates pretty high on my "getting down to business" meter. I'm going to give events a little more time to unfold before I settle back into pre-election defeatist mode.

Is he just there to pacify the left wing of the party by putting forth this bill?

I don't think that's very fair to Kennedy. There definitely is an "appeasement wing" (ptui!) to the party but Kennedy doesn't strike me as being a member of that element. YMMV.

From what I have heard, it is not expected to have the support it needs to pass.

Where'd you hear this? I've only had time to read a couple of threads on this so I've missed it if the press is covering that angle at all. Is there media spin or are Congresscritters saying it out loud or what? I'm genuinely VERY interested to know.

I have grown suspicious of everything and everyone lately.

Been there. :) I know how that feels. Hopefully a little positive Congressional action can dispel the funk.

[diamidue]

37. Can't recall exactly where I heard it.

Even if Democrats can muster enough votes to pass Kennedy's legislation, it is unlikely they would be able to override a veto by President Bush.
The legislation would need to not only have enough votes, but to be veto-proof, no?

And how many Dems have come out in support of Kennedy - or Kucinich for that matter? I am trying not to be "defeatist", but it doesn't come easily for me. ;o)

[pat_k]

38. A display of impotence. A transparent attempt to "object" without actually objecting.

Instead of meaningful action, they once again display weakness and impotence.

The ONLY way to say no -- to REALLY object -- is to demand impeachment. Now. We know all we need to know. Anything less than impeachment is nothing but a pretense of "objection." (Like their vote "against" Alito on the floor after paving the way to the court by voting for cloture.)

[EFerrari]

40. Impeach, indict. Say good bye, it's time to go.

So, what's the hold up?

:)

[pat_k]

41. Ask them. And challenge their rationalizations.

There is NO rational justification for their self-imposed and indefensible "impeachment is off limits" edict. There is NO escape from their duty to impeach to defend against the war on the Constitution Bush and Cheney have declared.

Ask the questions that force them to TRY to justify their irrational fears of impeachment. Simply as "Why?" or "What are you thinking?" or "Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds to the folks outside the beltway?"

Reality tends to smack a person in head when they are face to face with someone who is forcing them to defend the indefensible by simply asking a few straightforward questions.