Jim Webb Isn't Backing Down on Iraq

By: Lowell
Published On: 6/13/2007 1:45:11 PM

The Hill newspaper reports that Democrats, including Jim Webb, aren't backing down on the Iraq War:

Senate Democratic leaders late Tuesday unveiled a trio of amendments to the defense authorization bill that represent the majority?s next effort to force a turnaround in the Iraq war and isolate the White House from its Republican supporters

There appear to be three key amendments, including one by Jim Webb:

The first amendment, crafted chiefly by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), mandates the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq within 120 days of passage. The second amendment, crafted chiefly by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), would set strong troop readiness standards and ensure a minimum period between Iraq deployments.

The third amendment, a hotly sought goal of Reid?s that was crafted chiefly by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), would block spending on a future military presence in Iraq after April 2008, save for troops on counter-terrorism and training missions.

Meanwhile, CQ Today quotes Sen. Webb as saying that his amendment "would almost certainly require that U.S. forces stay home between deployments for at least as long as they are deployed."

That's badly needed for the health and well being of our soldiers, as well as to prevent President Bush from continuing to "break" our armed forces.  It's also a way to force Bush's hand, since if he doesn't have the troops, he can't exactly continue this Iraq fiasco, can he?

Comments



He can't continue? (Teddy - 6/13/2007 1:55:48 PM)
Not so sure, given Dumbo Dubya's character defects: How about extending deployments even longer? Better yet, how about simply transferring the military functions to, say, Blackwater or some other mercenaries, outsourcing the entire war to Bush's corporate buddies? Then there really is no accountability, but the American taxpayer still gets to foot the bill.


I like Teddy's idea re outsourcing. (Tom Counts - 6/13/2007 3:20:43 PM)
I'd love to see Bush try to pull an end run and outsource to contractor mercenaries. Bush and his congressional cronies could no longer claim that failure to fund the troops is the same as not supporting them. This is certainly in the realm of possiblity, since Bush could just shift the fighting to contractors and claim that his strategy has worked so well that he can say (again) "Mission Accomplished" and give the order to redeploy.

Who in Congress would vote for pulling money from returning troops' medical and other needs to fund contractors ? Political suicide for sure.

I don't seriously think that Bush would outsource all the military functions.  But he may be stupid enough to start shifting more money to the mercenary "accountable to no one" army without realizing how easy it would be for congress to convince the DoD to put a hold on a lot of contracts while they investigate hundreds of frauds.

And ... while investigations are ongoing the Dod has to do something with the money before it expires, and already has the authority to shift expiring FY 2007 funds to stateside underfunded urgent needs. When I worked for the Navy at Crystal City, we did that at the end of the 4th quarter of every fiscal year so the expiring funds weren't lost (expired funds go to the treasury for things like debt service).

And, by the way, Jim Webb was Assistant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Navy when we were doing what I've described above so Jim is very familiar with how this works and how an appropriations bill amendment should be worded, especially including the correct category of funds: A Navy/Marine Corps services contract almost always has to use O&MN (Operations and Maintenance, Navy) or OMA (Operations and Maintenance, Army)funding, which must be obligated (applied to a contract) before the end of the FY for which it was appropriated. The other contract funding category is for major end item procurement, e.g., high-dollar electronics equipment, and is usually 6-year money that doesn't expire until the end of the 6 year cycle. He gets a two-for-one "benefit" if he does this: In addition to being able to "take credit" for "Mission Accomplished", he gest the added "benefit" of more profits for his favorite corporations - until it backfires and DoD stops the flow of contact money.
I guess, depending on your perspective, that would be either a win-win for the troops and cover for the GOP congressmen or a no-win for Bush and company.

I got a little off the subject, but I think Teddy's comments open up some really important appropriations bill amendment strategies.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post, Teddy.

  T.C.



Typo: Reallocation of expiring funds are reallocated by end of 4th QTR (Tom Counts - 6/13/2007 3:48:39 PM)
You probably caught the typo:

Expiring FY funds normally have to be re-allocated by the end of the 3rd QTR, not the end of the 4th QTR, so there is enough time to make the fund transfers and get the money obligated (or expended if it's used to pay government employees' salaries, travel expenses, etc.).

 



America let Bush play with our Army and he broke it. (Tom Counts - 6/13/2007 2:16:04 PM)
This may be the shortest comment I've ever posted. I don't recall the author of my subject line nor exactly when last year I read it. This is my update: Every time soldiers get broken and then get (partially) repaired Bush sends them back and breaks them again, and again, and again.


More on this from a blogger conference call with Reid (beachmom - 6/13/2007 4:36:35 PM)
McJoan:

http://www.dailykos....

Following up on the supplemental fiasco, Senate Dems are regrouping for a new round of Iraq votes in the coming weeks. In a conference call with bloggers yesterday, Sen. Reid laid out the four pronged approach they are planning to take as they consider the Defense Department authorization bill.

Most of these measures are intended to keep the pressure on Republicans, forcing them to vote again and yet again on Iraq, since obviously they will all be opposed by the majority of Republicans and, in the unlikely event they make it through the Senate, vetoed. Nonetheless:

The first is a new take on timelines being developed by Senators Kerry and Reed. Given Bush's allergy to timelines, it's likely to be little more than an opportunity for the Dems to have another responsible, reasonable approach to ending this fiasco to present to voters in '08. Second, Reid will again bring Feingold-Reid to a vote, and he promises more than 30 votes this time. Third, Webb is leading an effort on troop readiness, that would require troops to have as much time at home as in theater. Finally, they will consider rescinding or revising the AUMF that took us to Iraq.

I think Webb is perfect to lead on troop readiness to neutralize the totally bogus charge that Democrats don't "support the troops".  I also like that the original author of a timetable for withdrawal -- Kerry (Kerry/Feingold June '06) -- will help spear head that portion of the four pronged approach Harry Reid is launching.



Sounds like plan (Teddy - 6/13/2007 5:14:55 PM)
another darned liberal plan from all those pro-surrender Democrats. This is really getting interesting, maybe I underestimated Reid. Let's hope the Bushies did, too.


It doesn't stop there (Teddy - 6/13/2007 5:11:16 PM)
given Cheney's mental dystopia.  Regardless of the condition of the military, I have a terrible feeling he will manipulate us into war with Iran, perhaps with the help of Amenidahjed himself (an equal nut), or with a seemingly unrelated domestic terrorist attack, or some other manufactured event. Whether it is Cheney's One Percent solution (if there is even a one percent chance of enemy action, treat it as if it is a one hundref percent sure thing, requiring our all-out, overwhleming response) or whether it is the neo-conservative divine conviction of the necessity of Armageddon which coalesces with many of the same objectives of the radical wing of Israeli politics both here and in Israel, it makes no difference.  The joint drive is to create general war in the Middle East.


Webb backes down (barbaycock - 6/14/2007 5:38:40 PM)
Phooey - you boys and your war games.  Webb should have opposed the supplemental.  All this strategizing  is nothing more than playing defense.  By the way, did the supplemtal have pay-go, like the Dems promised?
You may like the chess game, but the American people believe that the Democrats caved in. I do.


Huh? (Catzmaw - 6/14/2007 5:58:52 PM)
.  All this strategizing  is nothing more than playing defense.

What does this mean?  And where exactly would one put pay-go for something that's being allocated for an anticipated cost?  In other words, the cost is already there, the supplemental is meant to cover it.  It's not a new expenditure being incurred, which renders the concept of the pay-go moot.