Democrats Take Hardline Stance, Will Demand Withdrawal Timeline

[Rose Siding]

This afternoon's announcement looks like a significant development:

After weeks of suggesting Democrats would temper their approach to Iraq legislation in a bid to attract more Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared abruptly Tuesday that he had no plans to do so.

The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen. Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev.

"There (are) no goals. It's all definite timelines," he told reporters of the planned legislation.
.......
Reid's hardline stance, announced after the party's weekly policy lunch on Tuesday, reflects a calculation by Democrats that Levin's proposal probably would have failed either way......When asked why Democrats won't soften the deadline, the majority leader said he doesn't have confidence Republicans are willing to challenge Bush on the war.

"I think they've decided definitely they want this to be the Senate Republicans' war, not just Bush's. They're jealous," he said with a smile.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/18/national/w131138D56.DTL

[paulk]

1. thanks for posting

I almost missed this with all the taser crap on DU...

[Rose Siding]

2. You're welcome. I was surprised not to see it up...

and the lack of buzz here is puzzling, too. Atrios has it and I just checked kos, who writes:

Hallelujah....(snips article)

This marks a huge victory for those of us wanting to bring our troops home safe and sound to their families.

The polls were clear -- Petraeus convinced no one except shallow and gullible (and sleazy) Beltway pundits (see here and here), and people overwhelmingly want our troops home.

It made little sense to give Republicans a free vote on a bill that did not help end the war, yet gave them the ability to tell constituents that they were doing something to that effect.

If Republicans want to solidify their electoral chances next fall, they can do so by voting for an Iraq bill that actually does something to help end the war. But a free vote on a b.s. bill that did nothing? That Democrats even considered such a think boggles the mind.

Unfortunately, the GOP's good fortune on that matter appears dead.

Thanks Harry, for making that clear. Thanks to Dodd who has led on the issue. Thanks to Obama who lent his considerable weight to the matter. Thanks to Richardson and Edwards for putting pressure from outside the Senate. Thanks to Hillary who promised to fight for a meaningful bill. Thanks to everyone who's been making phone calls and writing letters.

Thanks to Sens. Ben Nelson and Ken Salazar who showed that even moderate and conservative Democrats could break with the administration on Iraq. Heck, Salazar even uttered those previously forbidden words -- "defunding". I have no idea what went on behind the Democrats' closed-door strategy session, but it's hard to imagine such a dramatic reversal in strategy without the support of the caucus' more conservative contingent........

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/18/183919/041

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. The lack of buzz, I think, is because people are pessimistic about the odds that

the Democrats in Congress will actually see this through instead of just posturing now and folding at the moment of truth (or several moments before that). At least that's the way I feel. I'd like to be optimistic, but recent history has, I think, given little cause or evidence for optimism.

[paulk]

4. I think Salazar's statement the other day was a real signal

that things have changed.

Bush threw down the gauntlet...

and it's starting to look like the Democrats have taken it up.

[Truth2Tell]

5. I want to know more

Will they still bring the funding resolution to the floor, pass it and then bring these (or this) resolution? Which will come first? Will they simply not bring the next 50B to a vote? Does anyone have the guts to filibuster funding?

I'm still not holding my breath. Fool me once...

[warren pease]

6. And how many more - US and Iraqi - will die as a result of this timeline?...

Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Who gives a shit; we don't want to be labeled unpatriotic for not supporting the troops with an election coming up.

As Kucinich says, "Yeah, I've got a timeline. It's called NOW."

What exactly is it about the word "now" that's so goddamned difficult to understand?


wp

[paulk]

8. what part about "not enough votes"

is so goddamned difficult to understand?

christ - Democrats take a step in the right direction and it is just never enough.

Never enough.

[warren pease]

9. And it's never going to be enough...

Until they cut off all funding, except what's required for an orderly and safe exit, and refuse to give this blood-soaked administration a single fucking penny more for war.

All that's required is for Ms. Nancy to table any supplementary funding bills and not allow them to come to the floor for a vote. They don't even have to "have the votes." And if the bastards start threatening some kind of reprisals, impeach them.

But considering her track record, the bill that makes its way through the House will probably start out with some sort of year-long timeline and end up being passed to the Senate with all timelines stripped out and more money allocated than the evil bastards even asked for.

At least that's what happened the last time BushCo wanted some more blood money. No reason to think it can't or won't happen again.

And that's why it's never enough, and won't be until all US personnel, military as well as mercs, are out of that country for good. Better yet, out of the entire region before they have a chance to ignite WW III.

In a show of dedication to their missions, it took 18 months for the "peace negotiators" to decide on the shape of the table at which the Paris peace talks would take place back in the Vietnam era. But the talks took a little too long.

At the end, the last US personnel out we're pulled by choppers from the roof of the US embassy a couple of steps ahead of the angry mob. At least this time, there's a zillion square foot embassy, presumably with plenty of flat roof space. Considering how popular the US is in Iraq these days, they're going to need every square inch of it.

And while we're impoverishing BushCo bloodshed, let's get the hell out of Afghanistan, too, before we murder a few thousand more innocent women and kids there. Because the US is the world's last great humanitarian country, for the first time since 1997 the Pentagon has requested a total of $1.3 billion for new types of land mines, according to Human Rights Watch.

Among them are "green parrots,” land mines with tiny wings which look like toys to children, who then pick them up and either bid goodbye to life on earth or spend the rest of their days missing limbs, eyes, parts of faces... You get the idea. But we're bringing them freedom, so it's all OK in the long run.


wp

[AtomicKitten]

7. Obama declared at Harkin's Steak Fry he wouldn't vote for any funding --

that wasn't attached to a firm timeline to get troops out of Iraq.

Gobama!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Gee. How "hardline" can the get? NEXT summer?

Only another year of murder until they set the next "timeline".

[spanone]

11. yes....let the republicons support and own this war...it's theirs, let them go down with it