RK ARCHIVE - ANALYSIS: How Democrats MAY really be able to force Bush to change course on Iraq!

It is very clear to me that Bush will probably NOT change course on Iraq on his own against his will on a voluntary basis. Check out this video where he says "We're not leaving [Iraq] so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake:"

Posted by Judd August 21, 2006 10:29 am Permalink | Comment (195)
It also looks like that Bush is going to be asking Congress for more money to fund the Iraq war when the GAO "Report Finds Little Progress On Iraq Goals:"

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 29, 2007; Page A01

By Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 30, 2007; Page A01

There will more than likely be a fight coming between Bush and Congress when Gen. Petraeus gives his report to Congress in the middle of September about progress in Iraq where there will be some real military progress by our troops BUT with very little to no political progress from the Iraqi government which is what "the surge" was supposed to be buying time for:

I saw this interesting exchange between Sen. John Warner and Tim Russert on Meet The Press last Sunday, Aug. 26 about how that Congress could force Bush to change course on Iraq if they really wanted to:

MR. RUSSERT: "Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans, said in May that if by year's end this situation has not improved in terms of military and political reconciliation, if the president doesn't change policy, Congress will do it for him. Do you agree?

SEN. WARNER: There is the opportunity for Congress to do it, but mind you, look at how they would have to do it. They would have to vote, let's say, some type of troop program, taking away from the president really his constitutional power to make those decisions, then that would have to go to the president. He could veto it, then it comes back for 67 votes. We saw this here recently. Now, that's a really an unwise way for our government to function. I, I don't think the president will, will be in any way overridden in his veto. I don't think..."

Here is the video link to watch this very interesting dialogue which was the first interview of the program:

Sunday, Aug. 26
Sen. John Warner (R-VA) who just returned from Iraq on the state of the war. Plus, a roundtable with Richard Engel, Tom Ricks & Michael Gordon.

1) John Warner and other Republicans in Congress are not very happy with Bush right now.

2) Democrats MUST have 67 Senate votes in order to be able to override a Bush veto.

I do NOT think that it is an impossible goal for a bipartisan group of Democrats and Non-Neocon Republicans in Congress to come together, agree on some kind of binding legislation that will force Bush to change course which can get 67 Senate votes, and then tell Bush to either change course on Iraq or else we will do it for you!

If even part of what David Brooks said in this video and transcript is true about Republicans hating Bush, then it should be possible to put together a bipartisan coalition of 67 Senate votes to do this:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, host: "Let's imagine it. Let's imagine this. Let's imagine this, David. The president looks at all the three or four guys that really are the front-runners on the Republican side now. A Rudy, could he say, `I'm going to fight terrorism in a different way than the president'? Could a Romney say `This is really about efficiency, not philosophy.' Could a Thompson come along and offer a different view? Would he stand by and let them sell that?

Mr. DAVID BROOKS (The New York Times): Bush--you got to remember a lot of Republicans hate Bush. I mean, we look at--we talk about the Democrats, how they hate Bush, in private...

Mr. BROOKS: They think Bush is incompetent and is destroying their party. The atmosphere...

Mr. BROOKS: I'm talking about county chairmen, I think people who work in the campaigns. I was just up in New Hampshire. The questions were--the questions, `We've got a draft dodger in the White House.' These were Republicans talking about a Republican. `We've got to restore some honesty to the White House.' Republican talking about a Republican president. The atmosphere in the Republican Party is not pro-Bush, and I don't think the--that they're waiting around for him to determine how they're going to run.

MATTHEWS: You make it sound like he won't even get invited to the Republican convention. You make it sound he won't even get Monday night till 9:30.

Mr. BROOKS: They're...(unintelligible)...and private. But talk to Republicans in--on Capitol Hill...

Mr. BROOKS: ...talk to Republicans around the country, he's not running the Republican Party..."

Aug. 24: War hawk and congressman Peter Hoekstra, R-Minn., explains why Democracy should no longer be a goal in Iraq.

Democrats probably have 49 Senate votes right now with Tim Johnson being out sick and with Joe Lieberman being on the other side. Chuck Hagel looks like he is on board with Democrats:

Hagel: Congress demands facts on Iraq
BY DON WALTON / Lincoln Journal Star
Friday, Aug 17, 2007 - 06:35:06 pm CDT

"Congress will demand a full and frank report on conditions in Iraq next month unfiltered by any White House assessment, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Friday..."

That means Democrats with 50 Senate votes will only need 17 more Republican votes out of the remaining 48 Republicans left in the Senate. Certainly some kind of agreement could be worked out with 17 Senate Republicans and in the House in order to put together a bipartisan coalition that can override a Bush veto and force him to change course on Iraq whether he likes it or not!

This could be done in conjunction with military leaders and a bipartisan Congressional delegation could even agree to engage in the right kind of regional diplomacy that is needed to help get us out of Iraq in a responsible manner before Bush leaves office. This kind of bipartisan coalition could possibly make Bush nearly irrelevant to the process since there would be enough votes to tell him "it is over!"

In order to get this kind of bipartisan agreement, some Democrats may have to settle for something less than what they would like. It may not have as much "teeth" as they would like BUT something that is binding is better than nothing at all which is exactly what Democrats will get again if they cannot get the votes in Congress that are needed in order to override a Bush veto!

An analogy to this is tournament Chess which I played when I was in college. When a game cannot be won due to lack of force, then a player is lucky if they can somehow salvage a draw which is better than losing the game.

Bush has superior force with his veto pen right now (which takes 67 Senate votes to override) and Democrats (who probably only have 49 Senate votes on Iraq in their caucus right now) will have to do some kind of compromising in order to get the Republican votes that they will need so that at the end of the day Bush does NOT wind up with another blank check for Iraq because there were not enough votes in Congress to stop him! I completely agree with Howard Kurtz that Republican votes are needed:

KURTZ: "And without Republicans there's no chance of Congress actually forcing any kind of pullout..."

What is in this for Democrats is that they will be doing the right thing for the country to end the war sooner rather than later and they will not be perceived as being a do-nothing Congress anymore:

Cafferty: Do something, Dems 2:50
Jack asks: What do Democrats in Congress need to accomplish to avoid a 'do-nothing' label?

What is in it for the Non-Neocon Republicans who join up in this bipartisan coalition is that they will be doing what is right for the country and they will also be helping themselves in the 2008 election:

SHEINKOPF: "Simple. It ain't working for Republicans. And the deeper they go in and the more they look at the supposed exportation of democracy to that country and to the region, it's not working.

And they've got to cut their losses and get out or they're going to lose the presidency ignominiously in 2008 and suffer more louses in the House and Senate. It's that simple. The president can't carry this out any longer..."

Bush and his Neocon allies are putting up a massive propaganda war now to try and stop any more defections from Republicans in Congress where they are again trying to connect 9/11 to Iraq:

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for August 22
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Guests: Chris Simcox, Susan Church, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Amy Goodman, Matt Continetti, Ruben Navarette, Joan Walsh, Ari Fleischer, Paul Rieckhoff

BARNICLE: "Ari, the ad is so powerful-the visual aspect of the ad is so powerful, with that wonderful, noble young man and the sight of that plane flying into the World Trade Center, filled with Saudi terrorists, not Iraqis, could lead several Americans, I would expect, to think that, Oh, Iraq was in on 9/11. Don`t you think so?

FLEISCHER: Mike, you`re stuck in the 2001-2002 timetable and debate. It is so far beyond that debate..."

The only way I can see to force Bush to change course on Iraq after the middle of September if he will not do it willingly is for the entire country to be made aware of the facts in this post, for enough of these people to tell their members of Congress that they want to see some serious bipartisan action, and for Democrats and Non-Neocon Republicans in Congress to rise above partisanship and find some common ground which they can agree on that is veto proof to force Bush to change course whether he likes it or not. There are many more Democrats and Non-Neocon Republicans than there are Neocon Republicans!

http://securingameri...
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.

http://www.securinga...
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!

Comments

If someone as conservative as Sen. Sam Brownback can get this concept (Mitch Dworkin - 8/31/2007 7:27:22 AM)

of the need for a "Diplomatic Surge" for Iraq, then why not other Republicans in Congress as well?

Republican Presidential candidate Sen. Sam Brownback is NOT exactly known as being very "liberal." Just look at what Brownback has to say about the concept of a "Diplomatic Surge" and the need for political progress in Iraq right from his campaign website:

http://www.brownback...

Brownback Outlines "Diplomatic Surge" for Iraq

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEWS RELEASE
August 1, 2007
Contact: John Rankin
515-221-1001,

media@brownback.com

Brownback Outlines "Diplomatic Surge" for Iraq
Says success in Iraq requires more than a military solution

DES MOINES - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, Republican candidate for president, outlined a "diplomatic surge" for Iraq that would aim for long-term stability by creating a soft partition for the three major ethnic groups in Iraq, with Baghdad serving as the seat of a united federal government...

No one wants to lose. The American people want to succeed.

There is some good news. U.S. casualties are down this month. That is a remarkable development, given the amount of fighting our men and women have done since the surge has been in place. They are doing an extraordinary job.

But better news about casualties is only part of the story. We need more than a military solution to succeed in Iraq. Iraq needs to stabilize for the long term.

That means we need a diplomatic solution. The key is for the Sunnis, the Shi'a and the Kurds to reach some type of political equilibrium. That will allow the Iraqis to drive out the terrorists, build their country and survive in a very tough region of the world. And, of course, a diplomatic solution is the key to reducing threats to our forces, and bringing about stability that will allow us to bring our forces home.

A couple weeks ago, the administration released a progress report that showed the difference between military and political progress. In a few cases, we made progress on the military and security front. We have made little or no progress on the political front. Iraq has not passed laws related to oil resources, de-Baathification, provincial elections and other key areas.

These are, of course, issues crucial to the future of Iraq. In that sense, it is no surprise that Iraq's leaders are so deeply divided. As we have seen over the past year or two, those divisions will not just disappear. Every Iraqi politician knows what is at stake, and that makes compromise hard. Boycotts of parliament have become routine. When they make progress in one area, they lose progress in another.

We need to recognize that the political environment is very difficult in Iraq and focus our diplomatic efforts on keeping everyone at the bargaining table until agreements are reached in key areas..."

Finding things like this is a good reason for monitoring the websites of all the candidates running because you never know what kind of interesting and helpful information that you can find!

Brownback in my opinion gets the main points that the entire country must understand by the middle of September which are that a "Diplomatic Surge" for Iraq is needed, "We need more than a military solution to succeed in Iraq," "We have made little or no progress on the political front," and "We need to recognize that the political environment is very difficult in Iraq and focus our diplomatic efforts on keeping everyone at the bargaining table until agreements are reached in key areas."

If a Conservative Republican like Sam Brownback can understand these concepts, then why can't other Republicans in Congress as well as the rest of the country who are not Neocon ideologues also understand it?

Forcing a Course Change by Bush (soccerdem - 8/31/2007 1:04:58 PM)

From what I read in the Washington Post and have seen on TV I find it doubtful that the Senate would ever get 67 votes to overturn a Bush veto concerning an Iraq troop pullout.

One article noted that the Democrats start with an 11 vote deficit, which includes Lieberman. But more importantly, I cannot see Warner voting for a cessation of funding either for the surge or the war in toto. Warner, and other Republicans like him will offer criticism of the handling of the war but WILL NOT vote according to the words they spew. I almost guarantee that the only time Warner would stand up and vote for the principles he weakly expresses is if 67 Senators had already cast their votes for stopping funding. Warner, like Hillary and Obama, knows at what point to cast his vote with a minimum of risk. He has always been a very, very careful man, and a clever man, too, as seen by how he jump started his career and personal finances from his first marriage (and resultant tawdry divorce) and his publicity-grabbing opportunistic 2nd marriage. As for the other Republicans who now criticize the Bush war "strategy," I'll believe their votes when I see em; they nitpick, then chicken out.

How can Congressmen vote against funding once the Petraeus report (with careful revisions and imprimateur by the White House and Bush) is publicised and the entreaties by Bush not to leave our troops without money for bullets as they are attacked by thousands of al Quada and other Islamofascists. When that spin machine gets going, WATCH OUT. Those brave-talk Senators will start hedging their bets, mark my words, just as they have done till now.

Harry Reid Opens Door to Pact With Antiwar Republicans / He has... (Mitch Dworkin - 9/1/2007 12:55:44 AM)

the right idea now how to really get something done about Iraq in my opinion!

http://www.washingto...

Reid Opens Door to Pact With Antiwar Republicans

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 31, 2007; Page A01

LAS VEGAS -- Saying the coming weeks will be "one of the last opportunities" to alter the course of the war, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he is now willing to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq.

Reid acknowledged that his previous firm demand for a spring withdrawal deadline had become an obstacle for a small but growing number of Republicans who have said they want to end the war but have been unwilling to set a timeline.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid said he will encourage new coalitions. "There is no reason that this be Democrat versus Republican," he said. (By Dennis Cook -- Associated Press)

"I don't think we have to think that our way is the only way," Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here. "I'm not saying, 'Republicans, do what we want to do.' Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do..."