Help me out here. Is the Iraq spending bill on the House floor unacceptable?

[derby378]

Does it give too much power to El Diablo? Does it have a timetable for getting the troops out? Does it counter the MCA provisions for legalizing torture?

All I know is that David Sirota is happy with the compromise, but Cindy Sheehan is breathing fire.

[Robbien]

1. It basically says Iraq war is over in 2008 but we leave plenty of military

in Iraq (and plenty of money) to be able to invade any and all countries at our will.

[derby378]

3. Hell, we might as well annex Iraq as our 51st state...

The Kingdom of Hawaii got a better deal than the people of Iraq did.

[tblue]

5. Oh, we did that 4 years ago.

[grytpype]

2. Some people want to cut off all funding.

And miracle the troops home tonight.

[theoldman]

4. These are definitely in the minority so it will not happen.

[EFerrari]

6. The quesion was about the bill, not your misrepresentation

of the position of people who oppose it.

[Tom Joad]

11. Strange to see republican talkin' points used here at DU, aint it?

[EFerrari]

16. I don't know. What you resist, you become?

I understand the desire to fully back the effort Nancy has mounted. It's such a relief to see her acting as Speaker. I wish I could. :hi:

[bryant69]

17. Those are Republican talking points?

Who said them?

At any rate, it's clear that some people feel that Congress isn't moving fast enough, and others feel that they are doing about as good as can be expected given the situation on the ground.

I am in the later camp, but I think it best to refrain from describing those who feel we should be moving faster as pie-in-the-sky idealists.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Tom Joad]

21. He said that those who oppose it expected the troops to be home by evening

which is not possbible... doing its best to make progressives look bad.... what we want is a end to the war... this year... not next... and not at Bush's discretion... this bill will do nothing.

Nothing!
If you think this bill will end the war... well...

pm me, got some beautiful bay bridges to sell... ask about my two for one offer.

[bryant69]

48. It won't end the war

As long as Bush is in the white house and congress is Democratic at the whims of Joe Lieberman the war will go on. That's not the value of this bill.

Bryant

[robinlynne]

12. Thanks sf

[Tom Joad]

10. You don't know what you are talkin' about, of course. Lee's bill would have

funded the troops safe return home. That's not a "miracle", but a sane policy alternative.

of course, i know some people LUV to use Republican talkin' points in reference to progressive democrats.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

18. According to Kucinich, there's enough money to bring them all home now. IMHO

I am with Dennis in this.

[helderheid]

20. As am I

[Tom Joad]

38. He's probably right. But the Dem leadership fears even bringing the Lee bill to a vote.

It might expose those in the Dem party to looking like they support the continued occupation. Which they do, of course.

[gravity]

53. How will they get the troops home?

What would happen to Iraq after our troops leave?

There needs to be a plan of action, not just more politics.

[gravity]

54. I agree

We need a plan of action to end the Iraq war, not empty political promises.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. bush has already said he will veto the bill that's on the house floor. So it

won't DO anything, if it retains any of the selling points, such as a time table.

Cindy is for saying NO!

David is for using the war for political advantage.

The main problem is the Blue Dogs Democrats, the right wing faction of the Democratic Party who are in favor of the war.

[Tom Joad]

8. It's okay if you like the status quo, i guess. More money for defense contractors

and you know they are always hurtin... damn near broke usually. Some CEO's makin less than 50 million a year (how do you expect them to put kids through school?!)
also good for the prosthetic leg business, in an indirect way.

[bigtree]

19. are you really comfortable spreading that bullshit?

from Murtha:

The emergency supplemental appropriations bill provides more than was requested by the President for our troops and veterans. Significant increases are added to address military readiness and force protection equipment shortfalls, and service members’ health and housing needs. The bill provides an additional $1.2 billion to re-focus our efforts in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda and the Taliban are regrouping.

The bill also includes money that the President did not request for the health and well-being of our war fighter. This includes: $450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Counseling; $450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research; $730 million to offset the Administration’s insurance premium increase to our troops and their families; $62 million for amputee care for our returning war fighters; $14.8 million for burn care; and provides funding for the creation of a new program that will provide support for those who are taking care of our severely wounded in military hospitals around the world.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr070315defense.html


'Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. '

Summary:
This summary has been edited for length

3/20/2007--Introduced.
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007 - Makes emergency supplemental FY2007 appropriations for specified activities related to the global war on terror to the Departments of Agriculture (including food aid to Africa and Afghanistan), of Justice, of Defense (Military, including funds for Iraqi and Afghan security forces), of Defense (military construction and base closure), of Energy, of Homeland Security, of Veterans Affairs (particularly veterans' health programs), and of State (including international peacekeeping operations), and related agencies as well as the House of Representatives.

Provides funds to enable military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements.

Specifies conditions for assistance to Lebanon.

Prohibits the use of funds under this Act to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified to the congressional appropriations committees in advance that the unit is fully mission capable. Sets a maximum number of days for deployment in Iraq for military units.

Authorizes the President to waive such prohibition and deployment limits on a unit-by-unit basis for reasons of national security.

Directs the President to transmit to Congress by specified dates certain determinations and certifications with respect to conditions to be met by the Government of Iraq.

Requires redeployment of the armed forces from Iraq if any of such conditions is not met.

Directs the President to appoint a Coordinator for Iraq Assistance, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Declares that Congress will fully support the needs of members of the Armed Forces who the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, and their families.

Declares the sense of Congress that the U.S. Constitution grants: (1) the President the sole role of Commander in Chief; and (2) Congress the sole power to declare war.
Declares the sense of Congress that: (1) the commanders of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq should be allowed to conduct the war and manage the movements of the troops; and (2) Congress should remain focused on executing its oversight role.

Makes additional appropriations for disaster relief and recovery related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to the Departments of Agriculture, of Commerce, of Defense (Civil), of Homeland Security, of Health and Human Services, of Education, and of Housing and Urban Development.

Makes appropriations to the Secretary of Agriculture for emergency crop and livestock disaster assistance.

Makes additional appropriations for specified purposes to the Legislative Branch and to the Departments of Agriculture, of Commerce, of State, of the Interior and of Agriculture (for wildfire suppression), and of Health and Human Services (for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and for response to an influenza pandemic).

Rescinds specified unobligated balances of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prescribes requirements for DHS contracts, subcontracts, and task orders.

Requires each federal agency that has awarded at least $1 billion in the preceding fiscal year to develop and implement a plan to minimize the use of no-bid and cost-reimbursement type contracts.

Makes appropriations to the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to eliminate the FY2007 shortfall in funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 - Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the federal minimum wage to: (1) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after enactment of this Act; (2) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and (3) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that

more . . .

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/bills/?billnum=H.R.1591&congress=110&size=full

[EFerrari]

24. I don't see how anything you posted contradicts Tom's assessment.

And there's this nugget:

Length of Deployment. Requires the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and
avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of 365 days for the Army and 210
days for the Marines.The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to
Congress detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit’s extended deployment is in the
interests of national security.

What does that mean? Is this the mechanism that will determine when or if the troops are "redeployed"?

[bigtree]

29. That means that Congress will have a chance to come back and addreess it

that provision is one of accountability. Bush reports to Congress and they make a determination whether those forces are necessary. It seems to me to be premature to criticize them for their response to a request which hasn't been made.

It doesn't mean, as many have argued, that Bush's mere submission of a report precludes Congress from stepping in the way and prohibiting that deployment. It makes Congress responsible rather than allowing them to argue that Bush is the one over-stretching our forces.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070308/pl_nm/iraq_usa_congress_dc

[EFerrari]

33. I don't think so. That's the Dem talking point but the bill doesn't

say that. :shrug:

[bigtree]

41. the bill doesn't preclude further action to restrain Bush

here's the provision:

"Authorizes the President to waive such prohibition and deployment limits on a unit-by-unit basis for reasons of national security."

There's nothing preventing Congress from objecting if his argument is bogus. I expect they will.

[EFerrari]

51. You made me smile for the first time this anxious day.

"if his argument is bogus" -- and I really mean that, no sarcasm at all. ;)

It hasn't sounded like it today, but I trust Nancy to do a good job. On the other hand, I can't expect her to read the minds of her Lefter constituents and think it's not a bad idea to try to anchor the left or what's left of the Left.

[Mass]

9. Basically a battle between what is possible and what people want.

Sirota is somebody who knows how the House and the Senate works. It is probable that he would like more than what the bill provides, but understand it is better to get this voted rather than nothing.

Cindy Sheehan sees that as an activist, and the bill is clearly a lot less than necessary, even if a first step. She will not stop fighting before the troops are out of iraq, but neither will Sirota. They both fight with the tools they know and have.

It is an error to demonize one side or the other. People in the House or the Senate are stuck with some right wing Democrats who are not movable. Either they can vote against every single progress that is not perfect (sometimes less than perfect) until they can pass a perfect bill (who knows when?) or they can do it incrementally, even if it is less satisfying.

Each side has to play its role. Activists have to continue to push, and to push on those who are less likely to agree with them as well. Legislators have to continue trying to get every progress they can.

[helderheid]

14. this is a victory in symbolism only.

[Mass]

25. So I imagine that Lynn Woosley and Barbara Lee, who decided it was better to vote for this bill

than to vote against it, should be demonized.

No, this bill does not bring us very far, I agree, but it brings us as far as the present congress will bring us and we have to deal with it, at least until 2008. So I would agree with them than it is better to take whatever small advances we can, if we can.

Now, if activists think they can change Blue Dog Democrats's mind so that they support the Waters-Lee-Woosley bill, they should certainly do so, but this is not going to happen if they continue to go after some who are already convinced, but deal with the reality of the House.

[EFerrari]

27. Lee was threatened with her seat on appropriations.

We know how she was made to "support" this bill.

And Nancy Pelosi has to deal with the reality of her district.

[bigtree]

31. bullshit

you have NO proof of that and it's absolutely unfair and dishonest to assert that here.

[EFerrari]

34. I'm so sorry, but it's true. No apology needed, bigtree.

It's pretty tense around here today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2775334

[bigtree]

42. It'll be a cold day in hell before I take Kaplan's word

Who is Jonathan Kaplan?

Summary: After a conference call with Sen. John Kerry and Pennsylvania Democratic congressional candidate Patrick Murphy, Hill reporter Jonathan E. Kaplan commented on an argument Kerry had made by saying: "Screw that and screw him."

On August 21, The Democratic Daily weblog noted that after a conference call with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Pennsylvania Democratic congressional candidate Patrick Murphy, a reporter, who, according to The Democratic Daily blog, was later confirmed by his Hill editor to be Jonathan E. Kaplan, commented on an argument Kerry had made by saying: "Screw that and screw him."

During the call with Kerry and Murphy, Kaplan asked Murphy whether Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont's primary victory over Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, in a campaign in which Lamont contrasted his support for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq with Lieberman's opposition, "hurts or helps your chances of defeating the GOP incumbent." Kaplan's question echoed the Republican strategy -- explicitly laid out by White House senior adviser Karl Rove earlier this year -- to stress the Republican's purported strength and the Democrats' purported weakness on national security. Kerry objected, noting that it is the responsibility of the media to "not allow them to be able to try to transform failure into an offensive policy to suggest that someone else is weak because they have an alternative that works." Kaplan responded, asking: "Isn't that your job, not ours?" Kerry said: "We're -- we communicate through you. And we need to invite you to be holding them accountable. ... We speak, but if it doesn't get out there, the American people don't hear it."

Kaplan has a history at The Hill of repeating unchallenged partisan attacks on Kerry. He devoted the entirety of a July 7, 2004, article to simply reprinting Republican attacks on Kerry and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) following the announcement that Edwards would be Kerry's running mate.

more: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608230008

[EFerrari]

49. Here's another report of another instance.

I also got the Waters story verbally on Wednesday morning. The thing is, the whole idea is upsetting so, in the end, I'd prefer for you to be right. Whatever.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3223.html

[Mass]

40. I do not know if I trust the Hill or not, but Woosley and Lee finally voted NO.

[bigtree]

43. Lee:

"I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."

[bigtree]

44. I think Lee voted yes

[Mass]

45. No, she finally voted NO, here is the roll call.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll186.xml

My guess is that, as her vote was no longer necessary, she decided to vote against the bill because of its loopholes.

[bigtree]

46. there it is

misread the crawl

[EFerrari]

50. Their amendment was also killed.

Oh well.

[helderheid]

13. here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=482219&mesg_id=482219

[mmonk]

15. Who's in charge of command decisions

concerning the military?

[Beelzebud]

22. It's only unacceptable if you're unreasonable.

I'm with David Sirota. Cindy should read some of Saul Alinsky's writing. She could learn a lot from him.

[helderheid]

23. .

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

26. Attacking people who have read and understood this bill

isn't very useful, imho.

Maybe instead of reading Alinsky, people should read THE BILL.

[Robbien]

30. Blue Dogs get 25B, Bush/GOPers gets about 100B, and Progressives get slammed

Of course it is unreasonable to expect the death and destruction should stop.

There is money to be had and some Democrats are chompimg at the bit to finally get some of that there taxpayer gold.

[Beelzebud]

35. This is chess, not checkers. Bush will veto....

THINK

[Robbien]

39. Think yourself

Blue Dogs win control of the party. We have just leaped a huge leap to the right.

The first version of the bill comes out which says get out of Iraq. Blue Dogs complain so Pelosi changes it to perhaps maybe we will get somewhat out and by the way Blue Dogs here is $25B of Pork for you. Progressives complain about the changes and Pelosi says go suck eggs, get with the program. Vote yes or you Progessives will lose all your seats. Now shut the fuck up and vote yes to more war.

[EFerrari]

52. Thinking is a good idea. We just missed an opportunity to 1)

Make real progress towards ending this disaster that is killing innocent people -- ours AND theirs -- EVERY DAY.

And, 2) we just missed an opportunity to show the Congressional Thuggery up for what it is, all hat and no cattle.

We could present good bill after good bill that would be defeated perhaps, but the repetition of Thugs voting against the will of the people would have been exactly what is needed to make the Republics continue to OWN this "war".

This is three dimensional chess.

[MiniMe]

28. It has tons of pork in it, I'm not really happy about that

[WilliamPitt]

32. My take

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x484353

[jazzjunkysue]

36. We will always have moderate and progressive wings in this party.

Demanding that one part is responsible for what the GOP did is childish.

We need both wings and we need to take real steps in the real world in the real right direction.

This vote makes the war the property of the GOP. It cannot be blamed on the dems because of this vote.

If the house and senate continue to be brave and vote to end this occupation, it will end.

This is a start. Of course we'd all like to wave a magic wand and unoccupy this country, but that's not an option.

This bill and Gonzalezgate are eroding presidential power slowly, but for real. The senate took away Gonzalez's power to re-seat the US attorneys. We've got to chip away at the neo-con attempt to make the presidency a dictatorship and the democratic party the minority party.

It can't happen overnight. But it's happening.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. It's a poltical band-aid. It does nothing to stop the war.

[bigtree]

47. It's a building block which will be reconciled with the Senate action