House Dems Dig In On War Funding: Obey Says No Withdrawal Dates, No Money
Recently we learned that Dem Senate leaders are contemplating getting rid of their call for withdrawal timelines in order to pass a December bill funding the next leg of the Iraq War.
This has prompted many people to start looking to House Dems to take a stand and draw a line against more funding. House Dems have been making noise about standing firm. But now the White House and GOP campaign to portray Dems as unwilling to fund the troops has kicked into gear, no doubt spooking some Dems, particularly those of the Blue Dog variety.
So what will House Dems do? What's their next step?
Well, today House Dem leader David Obey, who's insisting on withdrawal timelines, was asked this question at a presser. His answer: We won't fund the war without withdrawal dates. Take a look:
Transcript:
QUESTION: Mr. Obey, the rhetoric from the president is just going to get worse as the holidays approach. Are you going to continue to maintain the stance that you have of providing these conditions on war funds if he's to get the money?OBEY: Of course.
I mean, we have provided the money. I will repeat that 50 times. We have provided the money. The money is not the issue. The issue is that the president is simply refusing to accept the conditions under which the money is provided.
This document says that that's the proper role of Congress. If you look at Article I, Section 8 and Article I, Section 9, they define the authority of the Congress to determine what policy is supposed to be financed and in foreign affairs, and we're simply -- we're simply following that document to the letter.
Pretty tough talk. The question now is whether House Dems will hold the line in the face of the propaganda barrage from the White House and GOPers, who have already started to paint the Dems as unwilling to fund the troops, even though it's the Republicans who are blocking the funding by refusing to support any funding bill that doesn't permit for war to continue forever.
Obey says House Dems will hold the line, and as chair of the Appropriations Committee, Obey is in a good position to help enforce this. We'll see what happens.
The sell-out Democrats in the Senate want to make sure that Bush-Lite can continue her combat missions.
Our boys are going to be there forever.
November 20, 2007 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
any chance obey will stand firm? don't answer that.
November 20, 2007 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The link to this page reads "Hose Dems Dig In..." Shouldn't that be "Hosed"?
November 20, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey will stand firm. It's the rest of the wusses that will cave.
November 20, 2007 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO---"the constitution"---ROFLMAO
Give it two weeks.
November 20, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
GO DAVE!!
November 20, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. Better check the dates on the bill....
November 20, 2007 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey sticking a fork in it, the W.H. is done.
Obey's been there forever, works well with everyone, has real credibility. He won't get pushed around, top leadership (Pelosi) supports this strategy (even if Hoyer is hesitant).
February is doomsday time, game of chicken will come to an end, money will run out, we'll see who flinches.
November 20, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
SAY IT 50 TIMES! Say it 100 times! Say it over and over and over, every time the Bushies start in with this weak patriot act. And say it exactly the same way. It's got to be a mantra -- take it from the Republicans, who do this all the time and very effectively too.
November 20, 2007 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey for president!
November 20, 2007 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dave Obey deserves many thanks for doing what he's doing. I hope he sticks firmly to his guns. A showdown with the tyrant on this question would lead to an overnight reversal of the low approval ratings the Democratic Congress has earned from it's previous pusilanimity on this question of war funding.
November 20, 2007 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there one single, solitary Democrat in Congress who has true grit? Not just at a presser, but when push after push after push comes to shove? No bipartisan BS... No caving just before a holiday recess... No Friday night lite... Just stop them; absolutely stop them. Is it Obey? To date is war criminals:1000 Dems:Zip.
November 20, 2007 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get why they keep letting themselves be drawn into this. Make it crystal clear -- we will support each and every member of the armed forces to the fullest extent we possibly can... who is *already* in Iraq. You want $200 billion? Fine, we'll approve it for those already in the theater of war. But not a dime for a single replacement soldier, airman, seaman, or marine. Come up with some pithy slogan that emphasizes that Dems will fully fund every single one of the troops currently fighting but won't fund any additional troops into harm's way.
It cuts through the heart of the political argument, while still accomplishing the same ultimate goal -- it leaves Bush with two options, make current troop deployments permanent or gradually start bringing them hope as their tour ends.
November 20, 2007 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
All your suggestion would do, BKW, is insure that the troops in Iraq would be even further victimized by the nut-case we have for a C-I-C. Why put the onus on those already deployed?
Congress needs to have the intestinal fortitude to stick to their guns and not give the smirky-jerk yet another carte blanche in continuing his little game in Iraq. They should continue to DEMAND a timetable for withdrawal...and a timetable that shows COMPLETE withdrawal by the end of 2008.
Congressional spokespersons should be calling pressers every day and focusing the public's attention on just such things as the Bush Pentagon's treatment of Iraq-war veterans and the sorry concern he has for those that have returned hurt and scarred from his stupid imperialistic venture. (See the story elsewhere on TPM Muckraker today RE the Pentagon's billing injured vets for re-pay of elistment 'bonuses')...and they should tie such publicity to the Bush administration's efforts to charge the Congress with 'not supporting the troops'.
November 21, 2007 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The pentagon has $471 BILLION dollars to spend if it needs to on Iraq. This is all just political games from Bush. On top of that as well, Congress proposed another $50 billion for Iraq which the republicans in congress refused to pass. The next move is theirs.
November 21, 2007 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Obey is spot on with the arguement and should continue to pound this in. It wouldn't hurt to occasionally introduce a bill that endorses a pro troop stance. For instance, immediately introduce a bill making sure that the pentagon cannot backpedal on sign up bonuses just because a soldier was injured and can't complete his/her tour. (I realize the pentagon is reviewing this, but a quick reaction to something like this would still prove to have value)
November 21, 2007 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does no one realize that the surge in Iraq is actually working? If no one believes me, just know I am writing this from Iraq. I can almost guarantee you that if you quizzed Congressional leaders on simple facets of how the war is going in Iraq... They couldn't tell you. Withdrawing by Dec 2008 is unfeasable. I love watching average citizen internet bloggers continue to act like they know what the military can and can't do. Much more... watching ignorant Congressman claim the same.
November 21, 2007 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having a grandson who just returned from a year-plus in Iraq, Mark, and having discussed his tour at some length, I do not agree with your assessment of the 'war in Iraq'.
To begin with, by any measure, the population of Iraq is much worse off from the standpoint of living day to day than they were even under Saddam and the U.S./British enforced sanctions.
And, of course, it has never occurred to you to really sit down and justify the war which you are involved in, I suppose.
Just what is our justification for having attacked a country that was not a direct threat to our freedoms? Just what is the justification for having wrecked an already backward country, killing a few hundred thousands of non-combatants in the process?
Maybe you are brain-washed, Mark, but over two-thirds of your fellow-countrymen are NOT; and, while we wish you a safe and speedy return to your family and loved ones, we'll try to work to bring the 'war' you are fighting to a QUICK close.
November 21, 2007 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink