Out of Iraq Blogroll

A new addition to the right-hand column is the Out of Iraq Blogroll. It grew out of discussions at Talk Left and consists of left blogs that have concluded that the Iraq funding bill being promoted by the Democratic leadership in the House (my shorter version: the Pelosi bill) is not just "not good enough," it's not worth passing.

In fact, it contains so many concessions and loopholes that I believe it would actually forestall any attempts to add restrictions or funding cuts later: "Hey, we already dealt with that. It's covered - done deal!"

This is what I said in the discussion:

There was a moment when, thinking back to Vietnam and how funding was never cut off but was slowly strangled, I could have supported the Pelosi bill as the least bad available alternative. I would have been unhappy about it and intending to press for stronger restrictions at the first opportunity, but I could have done it.

That was before a vote on the Lee amendment was blocked; the provisions requiring troops to be trained, equipped, and rested could be waived; the provision about Iran got scrapped; and the only enforcement mechanism, the funding cutoff, was dumped, turning the "benchmarks" into nothing but polite suggestions.

I then pulled this quote from a March 10 post:

Let's be real here. This plan isn't about opposing Bush. It's not about stopping the war. It's about saying you oppose the war while at the same time running away from any actual responsibility for doing anything about it. It's about, bottom line, positioning for the 2008 campaign and who gives a damn about the lives, American (and allied) and even more Iraqi, ruined in the meantime.

We keep hearing that if the Pelosi bill is defeated, the next one will be worse. But no one seems to be able to explain why, given that this bill places only rhetorical restrictions on Bush.

So what happens if the Pelosi bill fails? Certainly, a new funding bill will be introduced, very likely a so-called "clean" one, that is, one that hands Bush his blood money with no restrictions. This is where a weakness in the defunding argument, which insists that all the Dems have to do is pass nothing, arises: Given that such a bill will be introduced, there are only two options for immediate defunding. One, the leadership has to actively prevent it from coming to a vote - and even if that's legislatively possible, it's not politically possible, as I can't see anyone imagining they have the guts to face the reaction such "obstructionism" and "abandonment of our troops in the field" would generate. Two, when the bill does come to a vote, a majority are prepared to vote against it, to again take an active step to block funding - and that is exactly the majority we don't have now in the House.

So, again, what happens? What some have suggested and which makes political sense to me, given the realities, is to give Bush his "clean bill" - but it only covers three or four months of funding. One real advantage of this is that it will force another debate on funding in a few months and then if necessary a few months after that. It can't be ignored or dodged or put off with meaningless "benchmarks." And there will be repeated opportunities as support for the war continues to dwindle, as it will, to put on additional restrictions up to and including a funding cutoff and/or forced withdrawal.

And if Bush vetoes such a bill in some fit of imperial pique, well, so what? In that case Congress didn't cut the funds, he did.