Is Cheney Right? Will Democrats Cave on Iraq Funding?

[proud2BlibKansan]

By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

Monday 16 April 2007

The rhetoric over recent days and this morning makes it clear that Vice President Dick Cheney is still in charge of Iraq policy. He seems supremely confident that the Democrats can be intimidated into giving the White House the only thing it really wants - enough money to stave off defeat until President George W. Bush and Cheney are safely out of office. That, of course, is also what lies behind the "temporary surge" in troop strength.

Was Defense Secretary Robert Gates being naive or disingenuous on January 11, when he appeared before the Senate Armed Forces Committee and addressed the "surge?"

I don't think anybody has a definite idea about how long the surge would last. I think for most of us, in our minds, we're thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years.

I know Gates; he is not naive. And, whatever the relative merits of positions on a policy issue, neither he nor anyone else in the small coterie of presidential advisers is likely to stand up to Cheney. The $64 question is whether the Democrats will. To me, that appears a long shot.

more . . .
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041607R.shtml

[TwilightGardener]

1. Yep--posted this yesterday--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3218164&mesg_id=3218164

[graywarrior]

2. Funny how I just can't trust them to do the right thing.

I'd give anything to be able to.

[babylonsister]

3. Levin Crawls Behind Rock, Waives Dainty White Cloth

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/21335

Levin Crawls Behind Rock, Waives Dainty White Cloth
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2007-04-16 16:50. Congress

Levin: Dems ready with second Iraq plan should Bush veto the first
By Jeff Karoub, Associated Press

DEARBORN - Democrats in Congress would make another attempt at reducing the American military presence in Iraq should President Bush, as expected, veto current legislation aimed at bringing home U.S. troops, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin said Monday.

The Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, speaking to reporters following an appearance in Dearborn, said he prefers passage of the current legislation.

But, should the president reject it as he has said he would, Levin said Democrats would go forward with what he called a "second-best approach" to dealing with security issues in Iraq.

The Michigan Democrat said the second bill would tie U.S. economic and military support to the Iraqi government meeting performance benchmarks.

"It's the second-best approach in terms of how to force the Iraqi government to reach a political settlement," he said. "Everyone is saying there is no military solution, yet the president's path is a deepening military presence."

Bush is deadlocked with Congress over Iraq, and Vice President Dick Cheney said Democrats ultimately will cave on the issue.

Bush wants Congress to pass a war-spending bill that does not include timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals or limitations on his military commanders. Both the House and Senate have passed bills to fund the war and start drawing troops home.

If the second approach fails, Levin said he would opt for a "softer version" that would require the president to report to Congress on whether the Iraqis are meeting benchmarks.

[Rydz777]

20. A "softer version"

is surrender. What the Congress should do after every veto is to pass a "harder version," tighter and tigher.

[Ian David]

4. It would be the first time he was right about anything in a long while.

If he remains true to form, then what will happen is the Democrats will hold firm, and then Cheney will claim it was HIS idea all along.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. I think so, I'm afraid.

As far as I can tell the Democrats and the President are playing chicken - the stakes are that unfunded soldiers get sent to war, and it's a matter of who caves first - do the Democrats fund them or does Bush refrain from sending them.

I do not think that president Bush is likely to chicken out first when the lives at stake are not his own.

[leftofthedial]

6. If they don't,

it will be the first time since Watergate that they didn't cave on a major issue. The sole exception I can think of is Social Security and that was because king george's plans for Social Security would have triggered a shooting revolution.

[leftchick]

7. Levin = AIPAC! This Explains A LOT.....

Damn fucking shit pops up like clockwork every time there is a question of where Democrats will throw a vote.....

<snip>

Do you want me to repeat that?

Levin is a smart fellow, but his progressive credentials have been tarnished by his caving in on funding for an unworkable National Missile Defense project; by his working out an unsavory compromise with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) on depriving detainees of rights formerly guaranteed them by the US Constitution. And now this.

What would prompt Levin to pre-empt his own majority leader? One possible explanation might be found in the chutzpah-laden admonitions coming from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) cheerleaders for Cheney, who do not disguise their fervor for the US continuing the war in Iraq. Their gratuitous warnings at last month's AIPAC meeting in Washington that US politicians not show "weakness" on Iraq spring from their conviction that withdrawal of US troops would make the neighborhood more dangerous for Israel. (Israeli politicians should have thought of that before goading Bush and Cheney into attacking Iraq in the first place.)

Senator Levin has received more money from AIPAC than any other senator. It seems an open question whether he is influenced more by the money or by a penchant - akin to that of Republican "neo-conservatives" - to see little or no daylight between what they perceive to be Israel's interests and those of the United States.

Perhaps there is a simpler explanation. If there is, Levin owes it to us. Yesterday he waffled some more, telling Fox News Sunday that, if the president vetoes a troop withdrawal date, Congress will try to approve a bill with "some very strong, clear, statement about the Iraqis needing to meet our benchmarks, and consequences if they don't.

:mad:

[ClintonTyree]

9. I share your anger....

our foreign policy is being hijacked by outside interests. I'm quite sure Israel can take care of themselves but they'd rather have the U.S. premanently ensconced in the ME to take the pressure off of them. And how many billions in foreign aid do we give them each year?

[leftchick]

12. It is 3 BILLION US TAX Dollars Yearly!

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=753&CategoryId=4

If that link is not "acceptable" here is another...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-United_States_relations

[Dhalgren]

8. What is fucking wrong with the Democrats?

Who are they afraid of? Who do they work for? They were given a mandate! Why won't they honor it? They should tell the miserable little pustule of an Emperor that his war funding is cut off! There is not really an alternative. The Democrats either cut off funding or support the occupation - those are the only two, real options. Anything else the lying politicians tell you is bullshit!

[leftchick]

13. Read the Aritcle

they are under the mighty $$$$$ held fist of AIPAC. Period.

[Dhalgren]

14. I think you are right! FUCK! Sorry....

[rpannier]

10. That's a quesion that should probably be addressed to the Nelsons, Salazar, Bayh, etc

The War has become an issue where you can't keep track of who's doing what without a scorecard and a re-cap of the days events.
scrubbie and elmer fudd are (I think) relying on Ben and Bill Nelson, Salazar and at least one other 'moderate' Democratic Senator to do 'the practical thing.'

They know they're not going to get any Senate Democratic votes from the west coast, the upper midwest or the northeast. They'll be focusing in on those Senators from the south and plain states.

Whether any of them will change course and give scrubbie what he wants is a guessing game.
I think Ben Nelson is a little less likely to give scrub what he wants since Hagel is leading the republikkan band against scrub.

Personally, I think scrub will give. But, with a narcissistic, sociopath like scrub, he might be willing to leave US military personel high-and-dry to get what he wants.

[YDogg]

11. Prolly.

[Joe for Clark]

15. You are looking at tactics - and this is about a strategy.

The country spoke very loudly a few months ago - a failure to heed this - will have a result.

You really think that "surge" does anything to change strategic position here??

I don't. I wish it did - but no.

Just a bad tactic in a dumb war. As long as the dems fight back the best they can - then they are ok.

Politically, I think it is that simple.

Not morally.

Joe

[BobRossi]

16. Like little girls.

Expect them to wet their pants and give the chimp what he wants. Time for Nancy to get back in the kitchen.

Take note John Edwards.

[Atman]

17. Of course the dems will cave.

It's what they do. Especially when Cheney's got all their NSA files.

.

[melissinha]

18. No

I think if there is any evil bastard that were to dare the Democrats this one will prompt them to fight back... I mean look at his poll numbers!!


I have hope that Harry will be able to muster some more votes with the Feingold's bill as public dissent for this issue continues to rise.

[Bucky]

19. Nah. Rahm Emmanuel is saying hold firm; Bush will end up twisting on this one

When Rahm says hold the line, I assume it's a pretty safe bet.

[leftchick]

21. the truth hurts

apparently

[babylonsister]

22. a.m. kick. nt