It's Clear. The Democrats Have One Path Out of Iraq.

[berni_mccoy]

Here's the Dilemma Bush has put the Democrats in (Sen. Reed even mentioned this briefly in his response):
- Bush is planning on a long-term, post Bush Presidency, stay in Iraq. The next President, whoever they are, is going to have over 100,000 troops in Iraq when they take office.
- Bush is going to follow Petraeus's recommendations and absolve himself of responsibility, saying this is what the Generals in command have requested.

The Democrats can:
1. Continue to fund this war.
2. Not fund the war.
3. Put forward a vote to end the war

Nobody, including the public, wants the war to continue, making 1 a bad choice.
The Democrats do not view option 2 as politically viable option. Biden even said on MTP on Sunday that this was not an option. I doubt you will get the party consensus on this and if it is chosen by the leadership, the party will split vote on a funding bill, probably one they do not want. This is because many Democrats realize Bush is insane enough to abandon the troops over there without funding and the blame will most likely, even though it is unfair and unjustified, fall on Congress. The GOP media machine will be sure that it does.
Option 3 is not feasible because they will not get enough Republicans to support it.

So what is left? I would say the most likely outcome is going to be something like the Webb approach, allowing for more troop rotation and redeployments. This bill will call for better treatment of the troops, forcing equal time away from Iraq as time over there. Without increasing the size of the military, this will mean a forced reduction of troops. But for Bush to veto it, he would look like he is saying no to supporting the troops. It is also something that would likely get more support from the Republicans and could possibly get more than 2/3rds votes.

Personally, I would like to see the Democrats pull option 2. But I fear that the Democrats won't do it as Biden forwarns that the troops will be abused by Bush, as they have been from the start. Bush will not withdraw the troops if Congress pulls funding.

[EFerrari]

1. This "abuse the troops" meme is a red herring. It's cr@p.

Don't buy into it.

Abusing the troops is what is happening NOW. Oh, and KILLING them, too.

[mmonk]

4. Yep.

All you've got to do is end the funding until you get a firm withdrawal date. Then you can play politics and send him a funding bill. But do not send a funding bill without republican support for the withdrawal date. If they don't agree, no funding bill.

[MichiganVote]

2. Republicans = War, when are people going to wake up to that?

[Sparkly]

3. They can't get the votes for #2, nor to override a veto of #3 even if it passed.

Everything takes that "supermajority" now, it seems.

[berni_mccoy]

6. They don't need votes for #2. Reid can keep it off the legislative agenda.

Not funding doesn't require votes. It just requires spine.

[Gregorian]

5. Chris Matthews on the post speech was saying the candidates will push for defunding.

I just heard him say that he thinks the candidates are going to begin lining up behind Obama's anti-war speech that he just gave. And start pushing for defunding.

I didn't hear Obama's speech, so I don't even know what he meant. But I'm pretty much paraphrasing what I heard on the post speech discussion.


Also, I know that if Congress defunded the war, the American public would create an outroar if Bush were to play any games with the troops.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Tweety is playing the role of "Lucy" in a perverted "Peanuts" role serving the political elites.

And far too many democrats continue to fall for his M.O.

He seems like he's seen the light and will emerge like a beacon (a al Oberman), but just when you are the most hopeful ... when you pull you leg back to give "that football" a kick, he'll pull it out from under you and you'll fall ass over tea-kettle, CHARLIE BROWN!

Don't fall for it! Tweety serves one very important purpose for the political elites within The Beltway: Disinformation Minister to the Chattering Classes. :thumbsdown:

[Gregorian]

11. I saw other posts saying just the same thing tonight.

He's not someone I've paid much attention to. I can't tolerate him long enough to watch. I have to admit that he seemed distracted when he was talking.

I rely on you guys. What a great place. The experience you pass along for free. Thanks. :)

[rocktivity]

7. I don't have a problem with options 2 and 3

Let George veto funding or ending the war--let the Repubs filibuster it. They can blame the Dems, but while George has nothing to lose but his legacy, the Rethugs will be on record as having opposed the troops, and THEY have nothing to lose but their jobs in '08.

If the soliders aren't coming home no matter what the Dems do, the Dems might as well make it work to their advantage.

:headbang:
rocknation

[old guy]

8. Option 2 is the only option.

If you deny the funds, you force * and the repubs to veto. I do not believe the people will blame the Dems for anything that happens then. Yes, the MSM and right wing will scream but I really feel it will fall on deaf ears. If I am wrong and the people do punish the Dems, it only means that they want a forever war and the Dems never could have succeeded so they lose nothing. Giving in and funding a further war will damage them far worse.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. There may be a #4

I heard on one of the news shows (CNN? MSNBC?) that Congress would need to ratify an agreement such as that which Bush is proposing to ensure our "enduring relationship" (translation: our more or less permanent military presence over there), so, theoretically, the Democrats (who ARE in the majority in both houses) could refuse to support it or even bring it to a vote, right? Remember, I said, "in theory." I can't imagine that there is going to be a groundswell of support for keeping troops over there indefinitely, even among Republicans (maybe).