Obama: Dems lack votes for timetable

[rodeodance]

Source: ap




Obama: Dems lack votes for timetable

By MIKE GLOVER 19 minutes ago

MAQUOKETA, Iowa - Despite the Iraq war's unpopularity, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that Congress lacks the votes to force a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number deployed.

"One way of ending the war would be setting a timetable. We're about 15 votes short. Right now it doesn't look like we're going to get that many votes," Obama said, referring to the number needed to override an expected veto by President Bush...........

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_on_el_pr/obama_iraq;_ylt=AjYAh3sAh6KdAMkeDdybNvQb.3QA

[Kagemusha]

1. I'll skip past the denunciations and just get to the point: Obama's right.

The votes aren't there, Reid isn't going to get them, the Republicans have rallied around Petraeus and Bush, and they will not be supporting a timetable for withdrawing US troops, especially since Bush would veto a funded withdrawal, leaving only what I call the Anabasis option, making the US Army fight its way out of Iraq with no funding or support. That's silly, we're not going to have that, and nor should we have to.

The President's veto pen forces this upon us. A united Congress could force the war to end, but a divided Congress cannot. That's how the system was set up 200+ years ago.

[mike_c]

13. "...making the US Army fight its way out of Iraq with no funding or support."

The military has the largest budget item in the gov't if I'm not mistaken. The Pentagon is awash in money. I believe the base 2007 budget for the Department of Defense is $440 BILLION. The military will not need to "fight its way out of Iraq with no funding or support," and it won't need to hold a bake sale. There is more than enough money in the military budget of an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Pentagon has already planned for that contingency.

Congress: stop funding crimes against humanity in our names!

[Kagemusha]

21. Actually using money for say, new aircraft, to pay for a withdrawal, is a crime.

Congress made such things illegal long ago. There is more than enough money in the budget for an orderly withdrawal, but it is illegal to spend the vast majority of that money for such a purpose.

Don't make it sound so simple.

[mike_c]

22. it isn't illegal to spend huge amounts of money appropriated...

...for military operations. That is largely discretionary-- that's the money the pentagon uses when it sends troops on peacekeeping missions, or maintains existing infrastructure, pays for routine supplies, etc. The defense appropriation contains discretionary money specifically for contingency operations. AND if Congress refuses to appropriate money for Iraq and the military does come up short, the Joint Chiefs will specifically ask for funds to cover withdrawal. If they ask for it, congress will appropriate it-- for withdrawal, not for continued occupation.

[Kagemusha]

30. Where do you get the idea the military will ask for that against Bush's wishes?

Where do you get the idea Bush won't veto money appropriated for withdrawal?

Yes, some money for military operations is discretionary. That money is far, far, far less than 440bn and the military would come up very short. Beyond that, I'm aware this is largely a game of chicken using the US troops as hostages but, being seen as playing chicken back with Bush and threatening to cut off so much money they can't withdraw safely or stay safely, is a hard position for any member of government to take.

[still_one]

19. and the votes aren't there for passing more funding either, if the Democrats were united/nt

[depakid]

36. Stop making sense

It's amazing how the corporate media and the Democratic "leadership" has managed to convince so many people to ignore high school civics.

[still_one]

46. you are right, but I wonder if people actually believe it?

The sad truth is they don't have the courage, and so many more people will die

[rurallib]

2. Glover's story is not quite accurate

Markos at the dailykos has an update and further story on this.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/13/162828/735
---------
The Obama campaign has a real case that the AP lede isn't quite accurate. Obama did predict that the Senate doesn't have the votes, but also urged people to contact their congresspersons to try and change things. So it wasn't so much "resignation", as it was "help us change this."

In any case, I think the ultimate strategy isn't a choice between caving and avoiding the president's veto. I think it's between sending enough tough bills to Bush that eventually 1) he either tires of vetoing and accepts a real compromise, or 2) his Republican allies in Congress abandon him
----------

[tired_old_fireman]

3. Putting a ceiling on the number of deployed troops

is about as good as a wet band aid. So the soldiers will get a little more time at home before they go back to die?

(edited because the AP story is misleading and I'm in a bad mood.)

[saracat]

4. Do we have a list of the 15 holdouts?

[sandnsea]

7. Republicans who are waivering

In addition to the ten I've posted at least ten times, other surprises include Elizabeth Dole, Lisa Murkowski, and maybe even Jeff Sessions. Kerry, and several other Dems, have been calling for pressure on these Roadblock Republicans since before Petraeus even spoke. Dems knew this onslaught was coming, they tried to warn people not to buy in, but noooo - Republicans rattle the cages and the left attacks, and then the DLC attacks back. I don't know when it's going to stop.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202542.html?hpid=topnews

[Telly Savalas]

34. If the number 15 is right, referring to the number lacking for a cloture vote

Then there's 4 Democratic holdouts. Those are the ones of whom we need the names.

The remaining 11 votes would come from any of the 49 Republicans. (Lieberman isn't counted in this because he delights too much in borrowing billions of dollars to pay for people's deaths to ever consider supporting a timetable.)

[Ian David]

5. Then let's not put any funding bills on the calendar for a vote. n/t

[liberal N proud]

6. So they are just going to roll over and let little george have his war?

Get a spine Congress and tell this despot enough killing.

[redqueen]

8. So get the fucking votes.

The public wants timetables.

Do it. Call their bluff. Put the next appropriations bill out WITH TIMETABLES and let the fuckers show the American public what they really think about the troops.

And then make some noise about it. You know, the way y'all did over Code Pink.

And Boehner's comment, too, while you're at it.

[independentpiney]

9. Fund it for six weeks, then make Petraeus report back

He kept claiming how much improved conditions were the last 5 weeks. That was supposedly why his figures don't agree with the gao and other reports. I'm afraid especially with Ramadan coming and bushit officially announcing a permanent occupying army, the next 6 weeks will expose the bullshit in painful clarity

[PSPS]

10. Utter nonsense

The house (which is solely responsible for appropriations bills) can easily pass a bill funding only the safe and orderly withdrawal of the troops. No "veto proof" majority is required -- only a simple majority.

Let bush veto it.

Either way, the funding is either redirected or stopped entirely.

The milquetoast Obama is afraid to go there, of course, because he's afraid "Rush will say something bad about him."

Some leadership.

[ColonelTom]

15. Bingo. "We don't have the votes" is a LIE!

Don't fund the war. It's simple. Bush is holding the troops hostage in Iraq to extort more money from Congress. Call it what it is, and act accordingly.

Stop lying, Sen. Obama! (And Sens. Clinton and Biden, too.)

[Inuca]

32. Not true

appropriations bills ORIGINATE in the House, but they also must pass the Senate, and then be reconcilled. It may (probably) pass the House, highly unlikely to get the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster in the Senate, not to mention the 67 needed against a veto. I also wish the dems in Congress did more, but PLEASE statements that have nothing to do with facts are not helful, get people confused, false hopes, unjustified anger, etc. etc. Learn before you speak (or in this case write), damn' it!

[PSPS]

39. Stop parroting the propaganda

Nothing gets paid for without house approval. The democrats could easily stop this if they wanted to, with or without the senate.

[Inuca]

42. That;s not what you said in the post I replied to

or at least that's not how I read it. You said

"The house (which is solely responsible for appropriations bills) can easily pass a bill funding only the safe and orderly withdrawal of the troops. No "veto proof" majority is required -- only a simple majority."

This implies that it is enough for the House to pass it, even ignoring the veto issue. My point was that the appropriation bill would also have to get through the Senate where with almost certainty it would require 60 votes. That's a FACT, not propaganda.

[PSPS]

43. Again, you're wrong

I assume you're not being intentionally obtuse, so this must be a misunderstanding.

1. House passes the proper budget to stop the bush crime spree.

2a. Senate passes bill - bush vetoes - mission accomplished. Funding of crime spree stops.

or

2b. Republicans filibuster bill (your reference to "60 votes.") Bill dies - mission accomplished. Funding of crime spree stops.

or

2c. Senate passes bill - bush signs - mission accomplished. Funding of crime spree stops.

Admittedly, 2c isn't based in reality. Nevertheless, this shows how, despite the lies from the democrats, what should be done could be done.

[rocktivity]

44. DING DING DING! PSPS, you're our grand prize winner!

Let bush veto it.

That's what I say! In fact, let the Rethugs filibuster it until the cows come home--AND then let them use it as part of their '08 election platform! Let him veto it, and explain why he's not supporting the troops!

:mad:
rocknation

[leftchick]

11. BULLSHIT!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1798111

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Perhaps SENATOR Obama knows a little more about counting votes in the Senate than you do

[leftchick]

23. perhaps

he does not choose to take the politically "dangerous" route. In other words... NO GUTS!

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Perhaps that's why he is a US Senator and one of the leading candidates and Kucinich

is a Representative and once again a an also-ran.

[mike_c]

12. this is a smoke screen....

Democrats do not need a time table, they need only NOT bring any war funding appropriations bills to the house floor. No bills, no votes, no war.

[Sherman A1]

14. Precisely

They pretty much need to do NOTHING (which I would assume even they could accomplish), just move on to the next subject like Health care, Toy Safety, or whatever. Just ignore requests for supplemental bills for Iraq. No Money.... No War.


:shrug:

[leftchick]

38. exactly

it is bullshit!

[MasonJar]

16. Well, keep the vote open until you get them. That's what the Pugs do.

And do not give the Pugs one more dime for war until they pony up.

[Inuca]

33. My last attempt in this thread to convince...

... people to learn their facts before they state them. Then I give up and go to hang myself in miserable and utter dispair.

Correction: the trick with keeping the vote open only works in the House, not to mention that I seriously doubt that it can be kept open for days, weeks, or months. The Senate is a different story, and that's where the lack of votes is critical now.

[stlsaxman]

17. If Obama gave a f*#k he'd rally for those votes HIMSELF and he'd be a shoe-in as the Dem nomination

n/t

[Doctor_J]

18. Vote on it anyway

Make them go on the record as supporting never-ending debacle

[rodeodance]

24. sounds similar to We do not have time to impeach.

[w4rma]

25. I remember hearing this from Obama on the previous vote. He's like a broken record. (nt)

[Inuca]

26. Because it was true then, and

unfortunately is most likely true now. It may not make me, you and most people here happy, but it IS the truth. And it is not Obama's fault.

[w4rma]

28. Obama is trying to make a self-fulfilling statement. He's working to demoralize anti-war folks. (nt)

[Inuca]

31. I really doubt that his statement...

... will have any impact on any republican in the Senate, and that's what counts.

[Zhade]

27. "Dems lack ethics to follow their oaths."

NT!

[BenDavid]

35. Here again is where Obama should

have explained to his folks on why it takes not just a simple majority to pass a bill but now the dems have to have 60 votes to close down debate by using the cloture vote....

I have written the HRC campaign and asked them to let HRC explain the reasons why they cannot get a bill through...Once the american people are informed of this then it might make a difference to the far liberal crowd as to why no bills have been passed to bring the troops home and set a time line for said troops to leave.....

Educate the people and they will follow you.....That is what we need....

Ben David

[depakid]

37. Maybe you can explain to me how funding gets passed

without a majority in both houses of Congress?

That's the bottom line here.

[TankLV]

40. Bullshit - as usual from him...many others have listed why this is bullcrap...

"Excuse Boy"

That's it - don't even fucking try.

Just pack up and go home - repukes managed to do plenty...

Let's see - waaaaaa - we can't do anything - we're the MINORITY...

waaaaa - we can't do anything even tho we're the MAJORITY...

waaaa - it's the only constant here...

[Tyler Durden]

41. IF WE HAVE 41 VOTES, THEN WE HAVE THE VOTES.

Time for a FILIBUSTER, Barak. It's what we PAY YOU FOR, NOT running for office.

If this screws with your election plans, TOUGH FUCKING SHIT.

[high density]

45. Let Bush veto it

I don't know what the Dems have to lose. This "oh we can't do it because it's futile" train of thought is so fucking old. Make your voice heard. There is a reason why Bush and Congress have similar approval ratings.