A strategy for after the veto.
By on Apr 19th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
A strategy for after the veto.
President Bush has repeatedly said he will veto the Iraq supplemental funding. Back-up plans are already being prepared if the veto occurs. John Podesta lays out four principles to remember and four scenarios for Congress to consider:
Matthew Yglesias and Chris Bowers favor the scenario that gives Bush a short infusion of funds while intensifying the pressure for redeployment. Paul Abrams wants a vote on an open-ended commitment.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sorry, redeployment was the plan two years ago. Bring the troops home now. Fu*k Bush. Start the impeachment already.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:45 pmThanks, John. You are advocating ANOTHER government shut-down? This time, our troops are going to die because of it. BTW: did Clinton ever fire any U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?
April 19th, 2007 at 8:45 pmNo he didn’t Jakeoff.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:49 pmComment by Larry King — April 19, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
It’s getting old, Shakey. Have the nominal courage to at least post your moronic garbage under a consistent name.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:51 pmAre you John Podesta? I will have to remember to ask John or Bill that next time I see them.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:52 pmJake, go f@ck yourself
April 19th, 2007 at 8:53 pmAbout that veto for any timeline to start withdrawing from Iraq. In terms that Bush can understand-”BRING IT ON!!!!!”
April 19th, 2007 at 8:54 pmHere’s a fifth post-veto scenario for you, John:
I M P E A C H M E N T
Get it on the table. Chimpy’s committed enough high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach TEN presidents.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:57 pmSubmit the same bill over and over again until late May then submit a shortterm funding bill
April 19th, 2007 at 8:58 pm(no long term funding until Bush submits to the will of the people).
I agree – let’s stop playing nice by moving the line in the sand forward every time the Bushites cross it.
Just resubmit the same bill with STRICTER constraints and tell them “Sign this, or each time we come back to you, you’ll get less – and impeachment proceedings will not only begin with the next veto, but will get worse the longer you wait”
Blackmail? They are so far past the line that blackmail seems like a gift…
April 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pmjake is a crossdressing coward.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:03 pmOr how about, do nothing. Failure to produce a bill funding this debacle will have the desired effect.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:11 pmI certainly agree that, if Bush vetoes the bill, it should be slashed to a third or a quarter of the amount asked so Bush has to come begging again. It should be scaled back to coincide with the so-called benchmarks in the bill. And Bush will have a tough time begging when the clock has run out on his ’surge’.
Redeployment does mean withdrawal. The troops have to be sent somewhere –home or Afghanistan. And let’s face it, Afghanistan is where the troops should have been all along. Iraq was a needless diversion by an incompetent commander-in-chief.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:11 pmI M P E A C H M E N T
Get it on the table. Chimpy’s committed enough high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach TEN presidents.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
I agree. Get on with it!
So Jake is Larry King today? So stupid.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:13 pmPS – the government is good at doing nothing, so they should go with their strength. This approach would end this disaster by June or July latest.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:14 pmEasy.
Send him the same bill, let him veto it again, then do it again and again as the funding runs out on the troops. He had the money fro the troops in hand but threw it back in Congress’ face over and over.
That gives more than enough cover to finally remove Bush AND Cheney from office.
If the Democrats can;t make the “he had the funding for the troops on his desk” and tore up the check… then they deserve to lose in 2008.
Even the dumbest GOP fucker on the plant can grasp “I handed you the check, and you tore it up, don;t blame me you don;t have the money” argument. It is really pretty fucking simple, but leave it to Dem “strategists” and “pundits” to waaaaaaayyyyy over think this and miss the mark completely.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:17 pmmuch more pleasant to imagine him as elizardbreath…
April 19th, 2007 at 9:20 pmDemocrats to make Iraq timetable ‘advisory’
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq “advisory” as they seek to reconcile two versions of war spending legislation into a single bill that they plan to pass next week, according to several House members.
The compromise language would keep the deadlines included in the original House bill but make them nonbinding, as the Senate version did, and would allow President Bush to waive troop-readiness standards, lawmakers said.
In otherwords, the democrats are “cutting and running” from their demand that their be a time table. LOL.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4728523.html
April 19th, 2007 at 9:21 pm#9 BINGO
SImple, direct, easy to defend/argue strategy. Bush had the money fro the troops on his desk twice (three times, etc.) but tore up the check. Then impeach his ass since the outrage would be deafening. Even the dumbest GOPer on the planet can grasp the “you had the money for the troops in your hand Mr. Bush, your threw it away, so YOU didn’t fund our troops.”
Bush would hit single digit territory as would anyone not voting to impeach his ass for it.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:21 pmThe most appropriate post-veto action of the Congress would be to do nothing except tell bushco we (the Country, the voters, the taxpayers, the citizens, the AMERICANS) have had it, bring our troops home now!. There is enough money to fund the troops until June 30. That gives the Pentagon 70 days to bring our troops home SAFELY. If King George the Dumb chooses to leave them in Iraq the monkey is on his back. Should the Sunnis, Moonies, Loonies or whoever is fighting the civil war in Iraq want to launch their ICBC’s (InterContinental Ballistic Camels) and follow our troops here then President Pelosi can deal with the problem.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:25 pmbig tent democrat on talkleft wants funding with a stated withdrawal date… i could support that but nothing less… my preference is, screw bush, bring ‘em home, the sooner the better… i am tired of being betrayed by my own party, especially after the latest bullshit…
giving thoughtfully articulated, reasonable advice to the bush administration has proved to be a totally worthless exercise, and, after six-plus years, it’s astonishing that anyone would even consider such a thing… picking up some republican votes is a craven coward’s rationale and is disgusting in the extreme…
this ploy is equivalent to the battered spouse, after the umpteenth beating, telling her husband she’s going to leave if he doesn’t stop… it’s playing entirely into the administration’s hands, giving them the space and, essentially, the permission to continue doing whatever they goddam well please with zero accountability… standing aside and wringing one’s hands when the “nonbinding” deadlines come and go without action is worse than no accountability at all… it’s the worst kind of sick co-dependency…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
April 19th, 2007 at 9:25 pmNot funding the war will result in the troops coming home this summer. Not one soldier will be put in jeopardy if war funding is cut off. The only problem with it is that it will create a scapegoat for the republicans, but I am willing to sacrifice the presidency and a few seats in the congress for saving american lives. Small price.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:27 pm“short infusion”? What the hell is that?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:27 pmWhy not keep it simple. The liar wants 100 billion (plus or minus a few)- why not divide it up by Oh lets say – 5 payments – each one based on the Iraqis achieving very very specifically defined goals.
Force the mother to have to keep coming back with his hat in his hand over and over again!
Hows that?
billjpa
Bush has been so antsy lately when he talks about funding. He’s been acting like a gambler who owes multiple loan sharks and has the expression of someone who’s about to have his kneecaps broken. He wants that money desperately. Call the War President’s bluff, Democrats.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:31 pmThe best way to proceed is to employ the art of compromise.
The United States needs to sue for peace now.
Two key personnel changes can do this quickly.
1. Bring back James Baker to run the State Department. His mission is to negotiate peace with all concerned parties. The method is diplomacy, passing up any temptation to use force or permit a surrogate to use force. A quick signal to the world would be to engage Israel and Lebanon to clean up those cluster bombs.
2. Get rid of Gonzales ASAP and bring in Carol Lam as the new AG. Her marching orders are:
(A) To restore Americans rights and promote, by US actions, the Bill of Rights concepts to those parts of the world which are now abusing individual rights.
(B) Enforce exist Federal procurement law so as to defeat all those war profiteers out there
The Congress, even with a Democrat majority, will go along with this simple direct action.
The Nation will have only one course, which 90% or so of the people will agree with.
The whole world will benefit.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:39 pmA little OT, but I have a point that fits the thread…
I received an email response from my staunch Republican Congressman today, in response to an email I sent him in support of DC having representation in Congress. He said:
“Thank you for contacting me to express your views about H.R. 1433, the “District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007.” I appreciate hearing from you.
Introduced by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), H.R. 1433 would treat the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, effectively repealing the office of the District of Columbia delegate. This legislation would allow the District of Columbia member to vote on the floor of the House like Representatives from each state, including myself.
As a general rule, I have always believed that local governments should be given the power to make decisions on issues that directly affect their constituencies. This posture discourages growth in the Federal government and encroachment on the rights of American citizens.
That said, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation over the affairs of the District of Columbia . Should H.R. 1433 be brought to the House floor for a vote, I would be inclined to oppose the legislation as it violates that Constitutional mandate.”
Okay, so, while it was sweet of me to bother, my “Rep” doesn’t actually give a rat’s ass what I think. He’s already decided.
My point: There is NO negotiation with these violent neocons on a mission from their invisible sky daddy. The Democrats need to realize that they have to stand up to these bullies. THEY have the majority. They can still be ethical and be tough… Sheesh. It’s like being governed by a brick of cheese and a brick… Sigh…
April 19th, 2007 at 9:41 pmPost veto: 1) strip out all timeline language; 2) substitute reinstatement of all taxes that benefit earners over $200,000 until we are out of Iraq and until every dollar since the surge has been amortized–we’ll be out by Christmas!!!! Doc Rock
April 19th, 2007 at 9:45 pmJust keep resubmitting the bill with the timeline. Bush will either have to approve, or keep vetoing, either way we can get out of Iraq, and face the enemy as needed.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:53 pmComment by unbelievable — April 19, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
In this case, your Republican Representive is correct. Absent amending the Constitution, I don’t see how Congress can give D.C. a voting Representative.
Well, there is one other way, as I’ve mentioned before, cede the residential neighborhoods back to Maryland. But then Maryland would get to decide how to carve up its districts, including the newly gained voters.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:56 pmI prefer that Congress not even try to override the veto. The only resubmission would be for the funds necessary to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission – the so-called “pork.”
That way, if Bush vetoes the bill, he vetoes his war. Period. He’ll have to take whatever funds are in the pipeline and use that to bring our kids home. Meanwhile, with funds going to beef up “Homeland Security” we’ll be better protected should the insurgents try to follow our troops here.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:01 pmIn this case, your Republican Representive is correct. Absent amending the Constitution, I don’t see how Congress can give D.C. a voting Representative.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
The thing I don’t like about responses such as the one unbelievable received, is the dripping condescending attitude. I get this type of response all the time. They’re trying soooo hard to be patient with the silly constituents who don’t agree with them.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:03 pmBilljpa, ring-a-ding-a-ding! You get the prize. Indeed, this is what the Congress should do. Make Dubya come back for supplemental funding every two to three months. If it’s an emergency supplemental, then frequent voting would seem to make more sense than voting a year’s worth of funds anyway. If Dubya can plan that far ahead for an “emergency”, then how come it wasn’t included in the annual budget submitted only three months ago?
Make the Publicans in Congress show their cowardice in supporting this failed President and his failed policy over and over and over. Rub their noses in it until they vomit. Make sure the electorate knows that it’s the Publicans in Congress who are breaking the Army by keeping it in Iraq to no good effect and killing American troops by prolonging the agony. Only by reminding them constantly that it’s the Publicans who are eagerly supporting this nightmare can the Democrats ensure that the electorate knows to whom they can turn to end this disaster.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:08 pm30 – I agree with you there. I hate spending time composing a letter to my Senators and Representative, only to receive a form letter in reply.
I will say this much though. When I emailed Rep. Kucinich a few days ago, I did not get a form letter in reply! That’s one more reason to support Kucinich, in my book.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:11 pmThe thing I don’t like about responses such as the one unbelievable received, is the dripping condescending attitude.
That was exactly my point… Every email I ever get from him tells me what he’s going to do. Thanks anyway for writing. He’s clearly not open to discussion, or he wouldn’t have been so definitive in his answer (like it was the only one that exists).
If DC were very conservative instead, he’d have had a different response – guaranteed.
I get this type of response all the time. They’re trying soooo hard to be patient with the silly constituents who don’t agree with them.
Comment by Zooey — April 19, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Exactly.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:13 pmThe war ends if there are no funds. Congress has funded. If Bush vetos, Congress should obey his command not to interfere and take no further action. Thus, Bush ends his own war.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:20 pmWhen I emailed my Senator, Obama, I received a personalized response. When I email my Republican congress woman I receive nothing back. She can’t be bothered.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:20 pmI liked the first proposal until I read #9 and that’s an even better version.
If Bush can be stubborn, so can the Dems. Giving him just enough to support the guys already there, and keep him asking congress
for more.
BTW, Kucinich is reported to be bringing his impeachment of Bush to the floor in the next few days.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:21 pmThat’s one more reason to support Kucinich, in my book.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — April 19, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
His calling for Bush’s impeachment is a big plus for him too.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:21 pm37, I thought all he was going to introduce at first is Impeachment charges against Cheney. I hope he goes after Bush as well. But maybe Cheney first is a better order of operations:
Cheney, then Bush, before a new VP can get confirmed through the Senate.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:46 pmMy biggest fear/dread is the Dems backing down and giving that stupid f*ck sh!t Bush what he wants….PLEASE… DON’T DO IT. Keep strong and keep your word – our country will become morally/emotionally stronger for it.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:49 pmComment by unbelievable — April 19, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Never in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution is it stated that the people of the federal district be disenfranchised. The intent of that article was that the Federal Government be responsible for the defense and policing of a region not to exceed 10 ten square miles in area, the capital itself. Washington DC currently occupies about 68 square miles in area. I was born in Washington DC, does that make me a resident alien or God forbid, an illegal immigrant?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:57 pmThere is NO negotiation with these violent neocons on a mission from their invisible sky daddy. The Democrats need to realize that they have to stand up to these bullies.
Comment by unbelievable #25
unbelievable,
…unless and until PRESSURE is brought to bear on democracy hating…
…right wing fascist Republicans throughout thiscountry…
Your family members
neighbors
friends
co-workers
and acquaintencesorsignificant others…
…within our spheres of influence…
…idiotic, inbred fascist Representatives like yours willcontinue to get re-elected…
…and YOU will continue to be irrelevant in his/her/their eyes…
…right wing social conservatives are ENEMIES of our democratic republic…
…and they must be dealt with…
…if America is to prosper and progress…
…otherwise, our country is lost…
April 19th, 2007 at 11:04 pmCut off funds. No money, no war.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:10 pmComment by WaltTheMan
WaltTheMan,
My reaction to your post on the VT situation was in large part…
..a reaction to your support of Sarah’s post…
…which sought to reprimand me for my post linking Bushiva’s incompetent…
…TREASONOUS “Homeland insecurity” swindle…
…to the VT situation…
…Sarah’s post stated:
“To all of you out there who are blaming this on the Bush Administration: you need to take a step away from yourselves. Stop trying to tell us how you hate Bush so much and actually talk about the real problem. THIS IS NOT BUSH’S FAULT,”
then YOURS in response to hers:
Comment by Sarah — April 16, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Sarah,
Exactly my sentiments. I would have difficulty expressing it any better.
Comment by WaltTheMan — April 16, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
…REALLY perturbed me…
…had Sarah (and by your own interjection YOU) merely expressed a desire to mourn the deaths of the VT students…
…WITHOUT “DEFENDING” Bush…
…I would not have been so harsh in my later response to you on that other thread…
…I have NO ideological quarrel with ANYONE who sees the criminal Bushites for who and WHAT they are…
…but for me…
…anyone who DEFENDS this TRAITOR (Bushiva) or any of his worshippers…
…for any reason…
…becomes in my eyes a right wing inbred Bushite TRAITOR…
…and thus my enemy…
…It’s TIME to draw a line in the sand…
…with Bushites there IS NO middle ground…
April 19th, 2007 at 11:30 pm#38 BnF
My bad — it is impeachment charges against Cheney, not Bush as I typed.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:48 pm“I agree. Get on with it!
So Jake is Larry King today? So stupid.
Comment by Zooey — April 19, 2007″
On what basis?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:53 pm“They’re trying soooo hard to be patient with the silly constituents who don’t agree with them.
Comment by Zooey — April 19, 2007″
How about an example or two?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:54 pm40 – You’re looking in the wrong place. Check out Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.
Representatives are apportioned amongst the several States. D.C. isn’t a State. There’s no basis in the Constitution for having a Representative from a non-state. That’s why the U.S. Territories of Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam don’t have Representatives either.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:04 amThat’s why the U.S. Territories of Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam don’t have Representatives either.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire #47
You’re right BnF…
…but those other territories are:
1) not a part of the contiguous United States
2) were not built by slave labor
3) don’t want statehood (Representatives)
April 20th, 2007 at 12:14 amHow about an example or two?
Comment by michael
I told you to leave me alone.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:36 amPost Veto, wait and put the money on budget. That way all of the people will see what this war is costing us. There is enough money floating around the Pentagon to cover the troops till then. The real reason the Bush needs that money now is to keep paying the contractors(Halliburton, Blackwater, et al) without the emergency spending they will be the ones without their bloated taxpayer paychecks to keep them in Iraq and lets face it they are the real reason we are still in iraq. Footsore
April 20th, 2007 at 12:55 amOn what basis?
Comment by michael — April 19, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
How about an example or two?
Comment by michael — April 19, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Poor michael, can’t form a complete or compound thought. More st*pid questions, from, a st*pid, st*pid little coward….
Poor michael, it must be awful to be you, it’s certainly awful to see how st*pid you are…
April 20th, 2007 at 2:38 amWhy not have a vote on cutting off funding for Blackwater personnel? Gets the job done and casts some much needed light on corruption.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:35 amre#19 Clyde the Ripper
InterContinental Ballistic Camels are no match for our ballistic missle shield as long as the Iraqis remember to to tell us the coordinates that they are launching the camels from!
April 20th, 2007 at 8:03 amShouldn’t comments and long conversations between people be deleted from these threads. People, there are chat rooms where you can talk about anything you want. So, why are you junking up this area with discussions of the VT killings?
April 20th, 2007 at 8:45 amThe democrats caving in to the President is not a winning strategy, delaying the withdraw of troops in Iraq is not a winning strategy, playing politics with the lives of our troops is not a winning strategy.
The democrats must take the high road, and make a stand on principle that the American people in the last election gave them a mandate to bring an end of our troop involvement in Iraq, the democrats should be dealing from a position of strenth and resolve. Not weakness and doubt.
End the War. Bring home the troops…its that simple. That is the Democrats mission.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:04 amOn what basis?
Comment by michael — April 19, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
How about an example or two?
Comment by michael — April 19, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Hey Parrot boy, answer this…Why are you such an unthinking tool?
April 20th, 2007 at 9:30 amI’m not an unthinking tool. Are you?
April 20th, 2007 at 11:29 am