Party baffled by its own war plan?

[JaJae]

Party baffled by its own war plan?
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 9, 2007

For all the fanfare surrounding the announcement of the House Democrats' Iraq war plan, few members seem to understand the specifics in the bill or when it would actually bring troops home.
The confusion added a layer of comic relief to a tense debate between factions of the Democratic Party as groups held dueling press conferences yesterday.
Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, of the Out of Iraq Caucus could hardly keep the details straight as she attempted to excoriate the plan proposed by her Democratic leaders.
"What they say is, if in fact there is no progress that we will pull out, if they can't certify by October, by December, but if there is progress, if they are doing well, we will stay," she said. "This would eventually get us out perhaps by March. The latest we would get out I guess with another progress report, or certification, by August of 1980."
Come again?
"Wait -- August '08," Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, quickly corrected her colleague.
"Oh, August '08," Mrs. Waters corrected herself. "That's how confusing it is."
The back-and-forth caused reporters to stifle laughs but also illustrated how few members had a part in crafting the bill and highlighted how it was a working document up to the moment Democratic leaders held their press conference explaining it -- 25 minutes later than planned.
After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi carefully detailed the Democrats' suggested benchmarks and requirements for President Bush to ensure that U.S. troops are fully ready before being sent to Iraq, reporters peppered her with questions to try and get the point.
"I'm confused," one reporter told the speaker.
"OK, well, let's try again," the California Democrat responded. "If the president cannot demonstrate that progress has been made in reaching the benchmarks which he, President Bush, has established by July 1 of 2007, we begin -- the 180-day period of redeployment begins, to be finished in 180 days."
But, what happens between July 1 and Oct. 1? the scribe asked.
"If the president shows that progress is being made on July 1, say he can certify that, then we ..."
"All he has to do is say progress is being made?" the perplexed reporter interrupted.
"Well, he has to certify and demonstrate that it has been. If he cannot -- if he does that, that takes us to October 1, where we want to see the completion of those benchmarks. If that is not achieved, the 180 days begins."
Some in the room giggled.
Exasperated, she concluded: "No matter what, by March 2008, the redeployment begins."
Further adding to yesterday's confusion, the total size of the spending bill was anyone's guess. Surely it was upward of the "roughly $100 billion," most speculated, as Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, rattled off a few million here and there for veterans and as Democrats noted increased funding for Hurricane Katrina relief.
The Appropriations Committee could not even supply the price tag an hour after the Democratic press conference.
"It's a work in progress," panel spokeswoman Kirstin Brost said.
Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, Wisconsin Democrat, didn't reveal the bill's total, though he did detail some of the benchmarks for progress required of the Iraqi government. Those include having an oil revenue-sharing law and amending the Iraqi constitution to improve relations among Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds.
"If they meet those political benchmarks, then even in that case our troops must be out of a combat role by October -- I mean by August of 19 -- of 2007," he said.
Mrs. Pelosi chimed in, "2008," adding, "If they meet those benchmarks."
"I'm sorry, that's right," Mr. Obey responded.
Other Democrats in the Out of Iraq Caucus were none too pleased with the plan, saying 2008 is not soon enough.
The proposal is "very, very complex" said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, Texas Democrat. "It has waivers, exceptions, ands, ifs, ors and buts, all of which appear to leave the determination over our future in Iraq exclusively in the hands of the decider or the misleader," he said, referring to Mr. Bush.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat, made the same 20th-century goof as Mr. Obey. She said the Out of Iraq Caucus plan would "fully fund a safe, orderly withdrawal of American troops and military contractors by Dec. 31, 19..."
Oops.
She caught herself, saying: "Not 19, 2007. I'm back in the olden days."
Mrs. Woolsey paused again, using the gaffe to reconsider: "Actually, we want our troops home with their families by Christmas."
Adding to the confusion is a competing Senate plan to revise the 2002 resolution that authorized the Iraq war and require troops to leave by March 31, 2008.
Still, that chamber's leaders did a better job pleasing a diverse Democratic caucus, with Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin calling it a "strong step toward ending our involvement in this misguided war" and promising to push for Congress to use its "power of the purse" to end the war.
White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, onboard Air Force One as the president headed to Brazil yesterday, gave predictable criticism of the Democratic plan. But he also tried his comedy routine, saying communication with Capitol Hill Republicans has "required almost hour-by-hour communication" because "the Democrats' position has changed by the hour."

Party baffled by its own war plan? -- The Washington Times

Video of Obey frustrated..

YouTube Video

The aftermath when he found out he was being taped:
TheHill.com - Obey berates woman over war funding, later apologizes

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) berated a woman who approached him in a Congressional corridor, claiming that “idiot liberals” don’t understand the war supplemental spending bill process.

Idiot liberals don't understand the war supplemental spending bill process?

Originally Posted by Obey

“We’re trying to use the supplemental to end the war,” Obey said. “You can’t end the war if you’re going against the supplemental. It’s time these idiot liberals understood that.”

A few moments later he grew angry and began attacking liberal groups for failing to understand how the supplemental bill, of which he is a sponsor, would affect the war.

“The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill,” he bellowed. “You don’t have to cut off funds for an activity that doesn’t exist.”

“The language we have in the resolution ends the authority for the war,” he added. “It makes it illegal to proceed with the war. You don’t have to de-fund something if the war doesn’t exist.”

Asked about passing a resolution to end the war, Obey screamed that they did not have the votes.

“We don’t have the votes to pass [a resolution],” he yelled. “We couldn’t even get the votes to pass a non-binding resolution one week ago. How the hell do you think we’re going to get the votes to cut off the war?”

“You cut off the funding,” an onlooker replied.

“How, if you don’t have the votes?” Obey roared in response. “That bill ends the war! If that isn’t good enough for you, you’re smoking something illegal. You’ve got your facts screwed up.”

“We can’t get the votes! Do you see a magic wand in my pocket?” he continued, opening his suit jacket as if to display an empty pocket. “We don’t have the votes for it. We do have the votes if you guys quit screwing it up. We do have the votes to end the legal authority for the war, that’s the same as de-funding it.”

When The Hill contacted him Friday about the videotaped encounter, Obey immediately apologized for getting angry with the woman, saying that his immense frustration about “this stupid war” boiled over.

If this goes wide it could really hurt the support of the Democrats in managing this war. As time progresses it's becoming clear they are not united, they really don't know what they're talking about and have no clear plan. The GOP doesn't have much going for them in this department either, but the Democrats have been trying to sell themselves as being better than the GOP in this regard.

I was a little shocked to see this. I thought the Democrats had it a bit more together. I lost some trust in the party after this. I'm still glad the Dems got voted in and took over Congress, but they need to step it up a bit.

[Pro Street]

They're not baffled, the problem is half the democrats are buying into the GOP's rhetoric that unless you completely fund the troops and THEIR plans, you're not supporting them.


fuck it.

cut funding, bring the balance of power back.

[JaJae]

How can they be misled by the GOP, did they not read their bill? Is it in clearly written in terms they can understand? It sounds like there's a lot of ifs, ands or buts along with no clearly defined principles such as cost. They're calling it a "work in progress," but nobody seems to really have a grasp of what's going on. And Obey who helped sponsor a bill is saying his own party are idiots...

There's a lot of confusion and in-fighting going on and I think some of it may have to do with the GOP, but it seems the biggest part comes from communication, preparation and lack of clearly defined objectives by the Democratic party.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

How can they be misled by the GOP, did they not read their bill? Is it in clearly written in terms they can understand? It sounds like there's a lot of ifs, ands or buts along with no clearly defined principles such as cost. They're calling it a "work in progress," but nobody seems to really have a grasp of what's going on. And Obey who helped sponsor a bill is saying his own party are idiots...

There's a lot of confusion and in-fighting going on and I think some of it may have to do with the GOP, but it seems the biggest part comes from communication, preparation and lack of clearly defined objectives by the Democratic party.

I think everyone knows what's going on. Everyone knows what must be done. To what degree is completely separate.

I think the reports of 'infighting' is exaggerated as well.


as to the video... give me a break...i've seen enough of it all over the place, and Obey is right... he also wasn't talking about his own party within Congress, he was talking about those wanting an instant resolution.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

They're not baffled, the problem is half the democrats are buying into the GOP's rhetoric that unless you completely fund the troops and THEIR plans, you're not supporting them.


fuck it.

cut funding, bring the balance of power back.

Now that's Leadership!

All Bush and GOP fault!


Why did they get elected in 2006? To cry like a baby?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

How can they be misled by the GOP, did they not read their bill? Is it in clearly written in terms they can understand? It sounds like there's a lot of ifs, ands or buts along with no clearly defined principles such as cost. They're calling it a "work in progress," but nobody seems to really have a grasp of what's going on. And Obey who helped sponsor a bill is saying his own party are idiots...

There's a lot of confusion and in-fighting going on and I think some of it may have to do with the GOP, but it seems the biggest part comes from communication, preparation and lack of clearly defined objectives by the Democratic party.

They got caught being divided. I would hope they are with this "white flag" power point plan. Not that big a deal when the President will Veto it down and as Obey points out, we don't have the votes to change that period!

But Hey, you are the majority party. At what point do you stop blaming the GOP and act like you have some authority?

The spin is pathetic!

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

How can they be misled by the GOP, did they not read their bill? Is it in clearly written in terms they can understand? It sounds like there's a lot of ifs, ands or buts along with no clearly defined principles such as cost. They're calling it a "work in progress," but nobody seems to really have a grasp of what's going on. And Obey who helped sponsor a bill is saying his own party are idiots...

There's a lot of confusion and in-fighting going on and I think some of it may have to do with the GOP, but it seems the biggest part comes from communication, preparation and lack of clearly defined objectives by the Democratic party.

It's because the party is going everywhere at once.

This party needs leadership. That's for sure.

[grembert]

In all the chaos, here is the good news : somebody is talking about how to finally get out of this Iraq disaster. Views are being expressed, people are arguing. It may take months to get some kind of agreement. But what is the alternative? To stay in Iraq throughout eternity?

[SoFlaJDM]

well at least i know it's not the republicans baffled by their plan... because they don't have one

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Now that's Leadership!

All Bush and GOP fault!


Why did they get elected in 2006? To cry like a baby?

exactly what I ment by borderline posts in the suggestions forum.


No, my good man. I don't recall the Democrats putting the country into this clusterfuck. I don't recall the Democrats polarizing the nation. I don't recall the Democrats firing Generals who say "we need more troops" only to fire another who says, "we have plenty of troops" a couple years later. I don't recall the Democrats pushing for a war based on intel known to be faulty. I don't recall the Democrats going 6 years without Congressional oversight. I don't recall the Democrats losing 1/6th of an audited war fund, only to keep asking for more. I don't recall the Democrats ever having a Presidential approval rating of under 30%. I don't recall the Democrats alienating most of our allies. I don't recall the Democrats wiping their ass with the Constitution.


No sir, I'm sorry...I misspoke earlier.


It's not all Bush's and the GOP's fault. Those that blindly support them share some of the blame.

[avsp]

Isnt part of the problem that there is no easy way out?

Thus all sorts of variations are considered all of which have drawback & none of which can gain a consensus?

Of course this is always the case, to some extent, with everything but Iraq is an ultra extreme case.

It doesnt help having the waters muddied with worries about being dubbed 'un-patriotic'

Even so the party has done a poor job in deciding what line to take.

They even, near enough, chose not to campaign with a clearly defined plan in a manifesto.

But then again the situation on the ground does probably benefit from adopting a flexible attitude, ..., as Bush pointed out in the Surge announcement speech, which to me just seems to get better & better & i think he has generally struggled to be an effective/honest speaker. Its a shame that he is no longer really listened to, but its inevitable given all thats happened


Lastly & purely out of a pathetic need to 'join in' I'd just like to say the GOP aint united on Iraq either, ..., & your mum smells

[grembert]

Both political parties stand to gain something by working out some kind of a timetable/withdrawal/surge/renewal plan, together. That sounds contradictory, but it is true. The Democrats know that they have to move toward withdrawal or they will have to have to pay the price in 2008. The Republicans have to move toward something specific, or they will have to also pay the price in 2008. The country, in my opinion, has been saying
( or yelling ) " Do something ".