Dems win with antiwar voters then back "troop surge" & war funding

[yurbud]

I hope Reid and the Democratic leadership are just blowing smoke up Bush's ass and marking time until they are sworn in as the majority in January, but given the number of times over the last six years they have not only put up token or no resistance to the worst of Bush's policies but even voted for them, I fear that they really will support this "troops surge" and then fund the war again, enough to let Bush coast out his term and stay in Iraq.

The democrats think they have us over a barrel because they see themselves as the only alternative to the GOP, but there is only so much people will take. With these current regressive bastards in office, I often think of the coup against Gorbachev in the Soviet Union. The coup plotters wanted to return to the darkest days of the communist oligarchy, and the people chased them out. When Gorbachev returned to Moscow though and tried to resume business as he was used to doing it, he too was pushed aside by the people. People did all that to a government that didn't even have a credible pretense of democracy.

The Democrats have a very short time to show the people where their loyalties lie, with the corporate and financial elite shipping our jobs overseas, filling their pockets with our tax dollars, and our graveyards with our kids who join the military, or with the people who vote for them.

The choice is not just Democrat or Republican. It is also whether we believe our current system is an actual democracy or just the appearance of it that needs to be removed and replaced with the real thing.

Democrats in Congress, shit or get off the pot.

RJ Eskow
12.18.2006

Submission Accomplished: The Press, The Dems, and The "Surge"

This is one of those rare moments in history when the oligarchical consensus that rules the country is forced to reveal itself in all its nakedness. Just five weeks after an overwhelming majority voted for departure from Iraq, the big debate in the media is whether or not we should increase troop levels - at a time when the Army's going broke.
And yet, there's no public outcry about subverting the will of the American people. Congratulations, GOP: Submission accomplished.

Here's a quick reminder: 7 out of 10 Americans want us out of Iraq within two years, and a majority want us out within six months. (You could be forgiven for forgetting, since you haven't heard much about it lately.)

Exit polls show that voters overwhelmingly made their decision based on Iraq. Yet as Arianna and others have observed, Harry Reid is indicating that he could support a "surge" - an increase in troop levels - provided that the Administration promised it would be only for a limited time, and with the purpose of withdrawing troops at a later date.

The "surge" can become the foundation for the Fourth Great Lie - which, like one of the the Great Lies that precedes it, involves that promise of "withdrawal" at some unspecified point in the future. So, while I hate to use a loaded leftist word like "oligarchy," what's a better term for a situation where a few people dismiss the expressed wishes of the electorate?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/submission-accomplished-_b_36623.html

[babylonsister]

1. Reid woke up:

The Clock is Ticking, Mr. President (Sen Harry Reid)

Frankly, I don't believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq. It's a civil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. In addition, we don't have the additional forces to put in there. We obviously want to support what commanders in the field say they need, but apparently even the Joint Chiefs do not support increased combat forces for Baghdad. My position on Iraq is simple:

1. I believe we should start redeploying troops in 4 to 6 months (The Levin-Reed Plan) and complete the withdrawal of combat forces by the first quarter of 2008. (As laid out by the Iraq Study Group)

2. The President must understand that there can only be a political solution in Iraq, and he must end our nation's open-ended military commitment to that country.

3. These priorities need to be coupled with a renewed diplomatic effort and regional strategy.

more at article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-harry-reid/the-clock-...

[MH1]

8. Many Dems came out clearly against "the surge" from the git-go.

Kennedy, Sestak, Kerry, to name a few.

So, not all Dems were rolling over for Bush.

[iamjoy]

2. What Fools

Do they want to lose in 2008? I can't imagine we even have enough troops to make the Iraq situation good. So, in a year and a half when we're campaigning against the GOP, it'll be just like it was in 2004 when Kerry had such a hard time living down his vote for the IWR.

OTOH - pull out of Iraq and it will still be a disaster. It's entirely possible Saudi Arabia and Iran will use it as a battle field.

It's a no win situation.

[texastoast]

3. In congratulating the new Speaker

I told her that if any Dems backed the upsurge in troops, I would work my ass off to defeat them in 2008.

I mean it.

[NavyDavy]

4. If getting fresh troops in there to cover the withdrawel or down

sizing of the occupying forces i agree wholeheartedly with it, but if its just to build up our forces in iraq I am against it.....but i will never go against a dem for a repuke, I don't care how bad their voting record is...

[depakid]

5. Anyone who thinks that the far right enablers in the party

are going to change their tunes just because they're in the majority is going to be sorely disappointed. Harry Reid disgraced sold us all out repeatedly as the minority leader- and I've seen little indication that he's going to act any differently next year.

[MasonJar]

6. Methinks that Senator Reid got a bundle of unkind response to

his original position. In any case it seems reversed.

[natrat]

7. meet the new boss, same as the old boss nt

[rollopollo]

9. Pelosi has given up

And so has Kerry. They have stated they will not balk at voting for another military supplementary spending bill that would continue the war. And Kerry has said he wouldn't oppose a troop surge. The new "strategy" by Democrats is to sign the spending bill and tack on a few clauses that allow for some investigations. It is seriously depressing.

Here's what I predict in the next few months: Congress will reconvene and Bush and the GOP will draft a military supplementary spending bill. Democrats will modify it, add a few provisions such as investigation into contracts, and a few vague contingencies for withdrawal. Reid will claim opposition, but relenquish the fight because "the caucus" has spoken. And then we will all be expected to express our gratitude to them for their putting a "time limit" on the war and "conditions" for withdrawal. In actuality, neither would be explicit enough to be enforceable.

It's the same way they got the UN to sign the Iraq resolution.

[Vidar]

10. Demonstrating again why Congress polls even lower than Bush.