REID AND PELOSI FUCKIN' CAVED AGAIN!

[Pab Sungenis]

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070501/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Lacking the votes to override the president, Democrats have already signaled they intend to approve a replacement bill stripped of the troop withdrawal timetable. Determined to challenge Bush's policy, they are turning their attention to setting goals for the Iraqi government to meet as it struggles to establish a more secure, democratic society.

NO! Doing that now makes the bill he vetoed nothing more than a symbolic gesture! This just proves my theory that we trusted the wrong two Democrats to lead us in Congress.

Memo: giving him everything he wants IS giving him a blank check, despite Pelosi insisting "The Congress is not going to give it to him." You just said you WERE. You're taking out the only teeth the bill had by removing the withdrawal requirements. You're going to just keep flushing money and human lives down Bush's toilet.

The American people want an end to this war. Every poll shows an overwhelming majority want the war to end. The people put the Democrats back in control BECAUSE they want the war to end. If they don't have the guts to end the war, maybe Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi need to step aside and let people lead who actually have the courage to stand up to Bush and say "no." People who have the courage to fo what the American people WANT. People who have the courage to stop the needless, senseless deaths.

Harry, Nancy, either stand your ground, or stand aside.

[w4rma]

1. Work on getting them the votes, not them. (nt)

[Pab Sungenis]

6. Get them the votes for WHAT?

Keeping the war going? We already passed a bill funding the war. Bush didn't like it. We should be saying he's not getting anything better.

By caving in, we're playing right into the Republican talking points that "Democrats aren't funding the war." We funded it, and he vetoed the funding. It's HIS fault. Let HIM deal with it.

[brentspeak]

14. "We" funded it? You mean the GOP-controlled Congress funded it.

News flash: The Democrats didn't regain control of Congress until a few months ago.

[Pab Sungenis]

18. We just voted to fund it.

Bush just didn't like the fact that the funding came with an end date is all.

[brentspeak]

20. "Disingenuous", thy definition is that response of yours'

The funding for this war occurred as a result of the GOP, and you know that.

[Pab Sungenis]

21. I'm not pointing a finger here. I'm not blaming the Democrats for voting for the bill they did.

Bush wanted funding. We gave it to him faster than the Republicans ever did. He just didn't like the fact that as a condition of the funding he would have to end the war eventually.

That's our position, and we should stick to it. We gave him a funding bill. He said no. So let him sit and rot.

[brentspeak]

22. Fair enough. I more or less agree with you on that.

[unlawflcombatnt]

68. It's Bush who's cutting off the funds, not the Democrats

It's Bush who is vetoing the funding. The Democrats passed it. It's Bush who's not supporting the troops by vetoing it.

Why in the hell can't Pelosi or Reid state this in their speeches?

Just state that Bush is cutting off the funding (which he is), and stop talking and back-tracking. Stop letting the Republi-tards from framing the debate. And stop acknowledging their brain-damaged sound bites.

If Bush wants to cut the funding by vetoing the bill, let him.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

[enough already]

73. If they are now going to give Bush what he wants...

...Bush isn't cutting off anything. Now is not the time to cave like fucking cowards.

[unlawflcombatnt]

105. Exactly

If Bush wants funding, he needs to sign the bill. As it stands right now, it is Bush who has cut off funding, not the Democrats.

I still can't understand why elected Democrats aren't screaming out that it is Bush who's cutting off the funding.

The person who vetoes the bill is the one cutting off funding, not those who passed the bill.

Like John Edwards said today, the Democrats just need to keep sending the bill back to him with all of the deadlines.

I'd suggest that each time Bush vetoes the bill, they should move the withdrawal deadlines up even sooner. He can either sign the current legislation with the extremely lenient time-lines it has now, or he'll get one with more rapid withdrawal time-lines.

The Democrats haven't sent Bush a bill he "can't" sign. They've sent him one he doesn't "want" to sign. Too bad. The little slime-bag dictator doesn't get anything he wants, any time he wants. Money ALWAYS comes with strings attached. He needs to get used to it. It's time to stop letting this evil, retarded little baby get his way.

He's not a king. And though he claims dictatorial powers, he really doesn't have them. Congress and the Democrats have the final say on funding, not Bush. If Bush wants funding for something, he can do it the way Congress stipulates. That's how a representative democracy works.

Bush's role as a "decider" is limited. It's time Congress reminds him of that point.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

[Clarkie1]

2. Nothing will change significantly until January 20, 2009. nt

[greatauntoftriplets]

10. You said a mouthful.

The Democrats have a razor-thin margin in the Senate, certainly not veto-proof.

[emilyg]

55. Sadly true

[enough already]

74. Impeachment would change everything

If this veto isn't reason enough to oust the bastard, I don't know what is.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

87. Sigh...

You need about a dozen Republican Senators to throw the Bush Administration under the bus to do that. Now there are 8-9 Republicans up for re-election next year and who are vulnerable to a well-funded Democratic challenger. Even if all of those people decided to save their political hides at the expense of the President, you'd still be short of the votes you need to convict in the Senate.

Reid and Pelosi should send the same bill back to the President and let him keep veto it again. The point of this exercise is to finally force those wavering Republicans to either get on board or to "talk" to the President privately and get him to change his position. One of three things will result: either the President will come around (not likely), the Republicans will desert the Administration in droves (somewhat likely), and the Republicans will, like lemmings, keep supporting this Administration and pay the price in 2008 (pretty likely).

The hard political fact is that the Democrats cannot end this war alone. The second best option is to force the President to change his position. The final option is to cause the Republicans to become a minority party for the next 30-40 years as a result of their actions.

[JimDandy]

119. The problem is, it isn't. But...

all of the truly illegal things he's done ARE and Pelosi had better get a spine and impeach him for those crimes.

edited to use a more neutral body part

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DancingBear]

5. Fear the pretenders,

for they surely do the most damage under the guise of change.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beachmom]

33. No, it's not. Your assertion is ridiculous.

We do not have the votes to override the veto. This is Bush's war, in case you didn't get the memo.

[DancingBear]

4. You're surprised???

You've been lied to.

Again.

We all have.

Are you starting to see the "not enough difference between the two parties" pronouncement that a certain vilified person made a while back just might be true???

Do not expect anything, and you will not be disappointed.

Change must happen from the ground up.

These fools live in the penthouse.

Don't fall for it anymore.

[brentspeak]

11. If I didn't know any better, listening to you, I'd think it was Pelosi herself who signed the veto

Good grief... :eyes:

[DancingBear]

27. If I didn't know any better, listening to you, I'd think you yourself believe

that Pelosi is actually listening to the people that want to END THE WAR.

Taking out a timetable for ending it is SUCH a strong progressive stand, don't you think??

Good grief... :eyes:

[Polemicist]

54. There's more than one way to create a timetable....

Bush just screwed himself. What we do, is take the timetable out of the funding bill. We take everything out of the funding bill, except funding. But we only fund three months worth of war money.

That's a timetable, right there. And a better one than giving Bush 12 months with Bush deciding if benchmarks and time lines have been achieved. He's a pathological liar and will say black is white and all is well.

Short term funding takes the war completely out of Bush's hands and makes him keep crawling back to Congress for more money. And the closer we get to the 2008 elections, the more Republicans will bolt from Bush. Plus we already know the "surge" is a failure. In three months it will be an even more apparent failure.

Lacking the votes to override a veto, this is the course we should take. A short term funding "choke chain" to control an ignorantly stubborn President.

[klyon]

96. I think you are right

"choke chain"
teach that dog to heel? he may be to old to learn new tricks

KL

[robinlynne]

99. or we could STOP FUNDING THE WAR.

[Polemicist]

109. We don't have the votes to defund the war...

Right now. The Blue Dog Democrats will bolt our caucus if we attempt to entirely defund the war immediately. The Democratic Party leadership realizes this and wants to accomplish several things in this fight. End the Iraq War, continue Democratic Caucus unity, and avoid losing votes in Congress. We have other political battles that are also important and we can't afford to fracture Democratic Party unity just yet.

So reality forces the incremental approach. Which in the short term, Bush has stopped with his veto. But as long as the Democratic Party remains united, we can ultimately dictate terms to the President regarding withdrawal timetables for Iraq. The key is to split the Republicans.

Current polling shows the majority of Americans are in favor of timetables for withdraw from Iraq within 12 months. But the majority of Americans are against immediate defunding of the war. So we align our fight with the majority of Americans and wear down the Republicans. I understand a lot of war opponents are frustrated. The art of politics is inherently frustrating.

But Pelosi/Reid's plans will work. In 6 months, I believe we will see troops begin to withdraw from Iraq, if we follow our leadership in Congress. As time passes, the difference in opinion between immediate withdrawal and withdrawal in 12 months will narrow. "The Surge" is what accounts for that difference. In three to six months, we will have definitive proof that the surge was a failure.

I like short term funding for two or three months at a time. It keeps the topic in the public debate and in the newspapers. Each day we continue the debate, Bush grows weaker and we grow stronger. It's been that way for 4 years and will continue.

[robinlynne]

135. or thousands of us could go to the offices of the "blue dog dems' and let them know

what we think. (ala PDA)

[Pharaoh]

7. It's politics

they are making a strong point they disagree with his policys and is pretty much on his own..........it's a start.

[tavalon]

46. No

A start would be sending him the same bill again, so he can veto it again and so on. The nation needs to see this supposed "leader" for the petty silly little despot that he is.

I belong to the chicken party.

[AnOhioan]

8. Unless the Dem leadership grow some spines....

We can forget about the WH and risk losing the Congressional majority in '08.

[PFunk]

13. I have to agree.

Alot of dems are already PO'd about a possible conpormise on the war. Already many of my dem friends are thinking about voting independent as they now see the dems as spinless fools not much different from the repubs who are killing this country. At least by voting for an independent they can say that they voted for someone who actually had spines.

[Pharaoh]

15. Well I lean toward Kucinich

Unless Gore runs, but I agree, the spine Dean gave them is in need of traction......

[dflprincess]

28. I have a lot of friends like that too

I generally think of them as casual Democrats - the generally vote for the Dems, but they're not activists. Currently they're not happy with the front runners in the presidential race and are hoping a third party candidate shows up. Party hack that I am, I amazed that I completely understand where they're coming from and I fear I'm going to have a hard enough time convincing myself to vote for the nominee, which leaves me few arguments to use on my friends.

What worries me more, are the ones who say they won't vote at all. If this is a widespread feeling around the country we could lose the majorities in Congress. I keep reminding them that they have to at least show up and vote for whoever is running against Norm Coleman, even if they skip the presidential race. I think I'm having some luck with that

[madrchsod]

12. we will have to wait and see...

[AtomicKitten]

16. Sometimes I wonder if people can count.

The Dems don't have the votes to override a veto. What the hell do you expect them to do?

[Pab Sungenis]

19. Not fund the war, then.

We sent him the best we can do. It wasn't good enough. So he gets nothing.

[elocs]

25. Don't count on it. They will have their fingers to the wind being afraid of being accused

of not supporting the troops.

[cascadiance]

50. It's all about FRAMING. BUSH has chosen not to fund the war!

He's just vetoed funding the troops. HE is the one that people should blame if the funding is drying up for the troops. HE'S the one that is not choosing the option to fund the troops to the point of when they can be gracefully pulled down there which is what a majority of Americans WANT to happen! We should not be afraid of continuing to beat that truth into the press, etc. OVER and OVER again! If they are going to beat "untruths" into us over and over again to try and make them truths, I see it far less challenging to continue to beat the TRUTH into people over and over again for them to see where the truth really lies!

[enough already]

76. If we send him another bill, Bush wins

Simple as that. This is the critical moment for Reid and Pelosi and it looks like they are preparing to cave.

[onenote]

37. and doom the Democrats chances in 2008 -- no thanks

A majority of the public supports ending the war with a timetable. But that majority isn't evenly spread. It is made up of an overwhleming majority of Democrats and a majority of independents, but a majority of repubs still support chimpy's handling of the war. And repub members of Congress aren't going to go against the base that elected them to support an override.

As for doing nothing -- it creates the risk that enough blue dog Democrats would lose in 2008 to cost us the House. While 93 percent of Democrats think chimpy is mishandling the war (and over 70 percent of indepndents), only 51 percent of Democrats support withholding funding if there is no timetable. When you add in the fact that only 38 percent of independents support withholding funding and only 12 percent of repubs, you end up with only 36 percent of the overall electorate supporting the withholding of funding. A recipe of electoral disaster.

[MadHound]

125. Oh gee, let's continue playing politics while thousands die

How dare you!

While you are worried about '08, people are dying. We can defund the war now, hold all supplemental war funding in committee, and end this war ASAP. It would save thousands of lives and prevent untold damage. Yet you are fucking worried about '08! I'm sorry, but there comes a time when one does the right thing, no matter what the cost. This is one of those times. How can you tell the families of those soldiers, those innocent Iraqis, that their family member died in order than a Democrat might be elected?

Defund the war now! It is the only moral thing to do.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

83. The support for that doesn't exist.

Last poll I saw, 65% of Americans don't support that tactic.

[elocs]

23. If you have seen all the cries for impeachment now you must know people cannot count. n/t

[zulchzulu]

43. We need votes to appear from Planet Zortnick NOW!!!

Either Reid or Pelosi better start creating votes out of thin air or I'm going to get very, very upset! Why can't they just make some people vote the other way? What the hell is wrong with them?

We need Spock to go the DC and change those Republican minds before it's too late!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

84. Best. Post. EVER!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[WA98296]

126. Represent the people. Support and defend the Constitution. Do they have any intention to do so?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChiciB1]

24. Unfortunately, It's Just As Simple As Your Statement! These S.O.B.'s

have seemingly "screwed" the U.S. of ASS so badly that there is VERY LITTLE wiggle room, IF ANY!!

EVERY SINGLE day that goes by I tell myself things can't get any more Effff'd Up, but it does anyway!

The Wizard of Oz seems more real to me at times, this IS NOT AN AMERICA I recognize, and haven't recognized for such a very long time! I know when it started going SOUTH, but the COMPASS got smashed on the way down and NOBODY knows which way is UP anymore!

I mostly feel like some Keystone Cop running around and around and no matter what I say, or how I try I end up right back where I started. Which is falling into THE BLACK HOLE!!

John Lennon, Everybody's talking about Revolution, Revolution, talking bout Revolution.... but that's all it is.... TALK!!

Bozo The Clown speaks and everyone falls over! What a World!! I guess you just can't stop INSANITY, but I know it WHEN I SEE it. We live in Bozo's World of Insanity and here I sit day after day with my jaw hanging down and wonder if it will EVER END!!!

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DancingBear]

34. Bullshit

Even time you get taken to the cleaners by the candy-ass folks you PROMISE will be receptive to your every need you rationalize their inability to take a stand by whining "it's a numbers game! it's a numbers game!"

First off, it was "wait until we get the House!"

Then it was "wait until we get the Senate!"

Then it was "wait until we get the Chairmanships!"

What's next, skippy - wait until all the Republicans die?

Having a conscience and doing the right thing is not a function of a quorum.

Unless, of course, you think Rosa Parks was plural.

Bark at someone else ace, you ring way too shallow for me.

G'night.

[mtnsnake]

41. Amen!

The numbers excuse is the sorriest cop out I've ever heard. It's just a lame excuse to give up without even trying. In theory, Democrats have THE CONTROL. They don't necessarily have the control to override vetoes, but they have more than the one vote majority need in the House that it takes to impeach. I don't give a rats ass if we don't have the number of votes it takes for conviction, but if we don't impeach, then we never will get to the bottom of things. Pelosi has sold out, period, and needs to step aside and let someone with conviction and guts take her place.

[enough already]

77. You said exactly what I've been thinking!

Thanks for having a set, which seems to be sorely missing around here and definitely in our elected "leaders".

[ChiciB1]

26. I Have No Guns... Don't Support NRA... Don't Like To Even Look

at them, but I now think I WANT ONE!! Just in case I get a knock on my door!

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. Dennis Kucinich doesn't want you to have one:

Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.

“America is being engulfed in violence every day. Let’s show them we have the wisdom and the courage to come from our hearts to meet this challenge,” Kucinich said.

more: http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819

[IA_Seth]

94. Oh lord...

Ok, I respect his anti-war stance, but this is ridiculous.

[loudsue]

100. That would never pass.

I won't give up my guns.

Just like the abortion issue with the repukes, there is only a small camp in the Dem party that want to outlaw guns. I don't support the issue, but I support the Dems.

:kick::kick::kick:

[TheBaldyMan]

107. DK just went even higher in my estimation

what balls, GO DENNIS!

[leftwing9]

122. Dennis is not proposing action against guns...

...he is proposing action against HANDguns. That's a pivotal distinction that needs to be maintained in this discussion.

Criminals don't use larger guns in robberies, just as casual hunters do not use handguns to shoot deer.

[TheBaldyMan]

124. Taking a strong position on gun control shows he has th courage of his convictions

he deserves support just for that. I'm trying to think of one of his policies I don't like and nothing comes to mind.

[benEzra]

134. Handguns are guns--and there are 2-3 times as many handgun owners as hunters.

Dennis is not proposing action against guns...he is proposing action against HANDguns. That's a pivotal distinction that needs to be maintained in this discussion.

Handguns ARE guns. And there are 2-3 times as many lawful handgun owners as there are hunters. (Only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts; most of us don't.) My wife and I don't have a single "hunting" gun between us, but we each own a 9mm pistol and a small-caliber self-loading rifle, plus a couple of bolt-action collectibles.

I don't know where so many people get the idea that gun ownership in the U.S. has a damn thing to do with hunting, but the truth is that hunting is mostly irrelevant to the gun issue.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[Oldenuff]

29. Maybe I don't understand

As I recall,the Dems won quite a few repub seats at the last election,mainly on the War issue.(and for many,the hope to return America to it's principles thru impeachment),but it seems that all we get is non binding resolutions,and all the other foot dragging.

Whats the good of a 2 party system,if no reasonable change is affected?

[Tom Joad]

32. there is NO reason why congress needs to pass any funding for this war,

there is sufficienct funding to bring the troops home.

[fed-up]

35. F*CK Politics-PEOPLE ARE DYING NOW-keep the timetable-better yet-TROOPS HOME NOW- nt

[midnight]

121. Bring the troops home! I love typing that. I repeat it often....

[unkachuck]

36. they are afraid....

....the repugs will blame them for 'losing the war' in '08....and they have such little confidence in being able to refute the repug smear that they are now going to water-down an already toothless bill....

....hey progressives, now do you feel like chumps?

[enough already]

78. We're being used, no question about it n/t

[bdamomma]

93. we are being used and not being listened too

everyday we waste in bringing down these thugs is more blood on our hands too.

[Le Taz Hot]

79. Progressives????

Whaaa??? The progressives didn't put these guys in there -- the "party loyalty above country" crowd put these "leaders" in.

Don't blame us, baby, we wanted Dean or Kucinich for the presidency and most of us howled (for good reason) about these spineless "centrists" being named as leaders. No, the "go-along-to-get-along" crowd can take responsibility for these guys while more innocents die for nothing.

[MasterDarkNinja]

38. It doesn't matter when they scheduled the meeting, the veto would stand either way

Like it not if we want to appeal to the independents in 08 we can't have our democrats in congress being another Bush going "my way or the highway", that's just what threw the repukes out of power.

Unfortunately even though the public is against the war in Iraq, the public is not for cutting off all funding for Iraq right away, which is pretty much the only thing our dems in congress could do right now to end the war while Bush is in office. The sad reality is we're probably going to have to wait until 09 to get out of Iraq. :(

[onenote]

39. sad, but true

[tavalon]

48. Of course they won't be able to override the veto!

So, send him essentially the same bill and let him veto it and then send him essentially the same bill and let him veto it...........lather, rinse, repeat.

This is not rocket science. It's smart politics.

He doesn't want the fucking timetables. Tough. He doesn't get to decide.

Unless our leaders roll over, as it seems they have decided to do.

[jgraz]

51. Or here's a thought: send him NOTHING

Bush can't fund the troops on his own (legally). The Dems control both houses -- why the fuck are they sending him ANY funding bill? Since he doesn't like their bill, just wait until he submits an acceptable piece of legislation before you vote.

[Virginian]

56. After the debate, Gravel said to hold the veto override vote

at Noon and have it televised so everyone back home can see how the republicans voted.

[jgraz]

57. I thought he said to hold a cloture vote on another bill

The one to make staying in Iraq a felony. I don't recall (/alberto) him saying it about the veto override.

But the point still stands: they are under NO obligation to pass anything. And they shouldn't.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. He'll just break the law

We spend plenty of money on defense in other areas and he'll just divert it to Iraq until he's out of office. It will go to the Supreme Court and in a 5 to 4 decision thanks to Alito and Roberts, they will rule in his favor.

When the constitution was written, we didn't have a professional military. Now that we do, there's almost no way for congress to end a war.

[jgraz]

65. Impeachment doesn't go through the SCOTUS

If Congress really wanted to force a showdown, this guy could be out of office by August. The problem is they don't have the spine to really stand up to him.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Name the 67 Senators that will vote for conviction

At maximum I count 52. All of the Democrats, Gordon Smith, and Chuck Hagel. That's the absolute MAXIMUM and that's assuming that Tim Johnson is well enough to vote.

If the American people wanted impeachment or wanted Pelosi and Reid to really do something about the war, they wouldn't have sent people like Joe Lieberman and Trent Lott back to the US Senate. They sent them a razor thin majority and poll numbers that say "If you let the funding expire, we'll start believing the Republicans again when they say that you don't support our troops." The American People didn't send Pelosi and Reid the muscle that they need to really do anything about this war.

[jgraz]

67. More importantly, name 33 who will never vote to convict no matter what

We need to corner Bush and make him give us a reason to remove him. He's to egotistical not to take the bait.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. Corner him with what?

Bush has done plenty of things wrong and there aren't even near 67 Senators willing to convict him. I'm confused as to how you think that is going to change.

[jgraz]

72. Whip and a chair works for me

Although I think a constitutional showdown over the power of congress would do the trick nicely. If you remove all funding for the war, * will either have to admit defeat or go around the law. Which route do you think he'll choose?

At some point, these senators need to think about their own re-election. If supporting * begins to hurt them, they'll drop him in a heartbeat.

[onenote]

80. there isn't a majority in favor of removing all funding

Where do you get those votes? A solid majority of the public supports funding even if there is no timetable attached (an overwhelming majority of repubs and a solid majority of independents offsetting a narrower majority of Democrats who would favor the no funding approach). Not surprisingly, a majority in Congress feels the same way.

[Hippo_Tron]

101. He'll go around the law and we still won't have 67 votes for conviction

Being tied to an unpopular president like * is bad for re-election, but a political victory like impeaching and convicting a president is far worse. There's plenty of senators from safe red states who will stick with Bush no matter how bad things get. The only way they will drop him is if he gets a blowjob from an intern and even then he'll probably make some excuse about how that's okay after 9/11.

[Senator]

104. Torture -- As In Impeachment for Torture

Are there 30 GOP Senators who will stand up for the world, for history, and for their children and defend torture?

Perhaps, but it's no "slam dunk." The Senate has already voted 90-9 to pass the McCain Anti-Torture amendment -- which bushcheney promptly circumvented with a signing statement. Even Rethug Senators hate being publicly emasculated.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in Hamdan that Geneva applies. The regime has already admitted that they refuse to accept and apply that ruling. No investigation required. No witness to question. Simple reality vs. rhetorical rationalization.

The cut and dried issue is: Do we continue with bushcheney as a War Criminal Nation or not?

Sadly, failing to make the effort is even worse than failing to remove them.

--

[bdamomma]

95. do we have "the spine" to stand up against this little man?

[JimDandy]

120. I concur! n/t

[madfloridian]

40. You have only the reporter's word they "signaled" that.

Sorry, but I think that is jumping the gun.

[jgraz]

45. Exactly. This smacks of lazy reporting.

After the Dem's display today, it would just be too damaging to cave on this.

[mtnsnake]

42. Thank you!

Many of our Congress people are overdue for spine transplants.

[Anywho6]

47. Kick!! I'm so damn sick of this shit!!

I'm so sick of getting a "canned" reply from my CA rep saying, "Thank you for contacting me regarding impeaching President Bush and or other members of his administration. I am glad you have taken the time to share your concerns with me.

I appreciate your passion for this issue. However, I agree with my colleagues in Congress that efforts to pursue impeachment would - at this time - seriously detract from our ability to lead our country in a new and positive direction.

Fortunately, last November, Americans voted for change. Democrats have control of both the House and the Senate and we are taking large steps toward improving our nation. Our agenda to make healthcare more
affordable, expand educational opportunities, promote job growth, tackle global warming and increase our nation's energy independence would all be put on hold to investigate possible impeachable offenses..." blah blah blah.

I hope some of the politicians with that view read this message board and take heed of the anger and disgust and realize that with every day that passes with these criminals in office makes the job of recovery just that much more difficult. And, at some point, issues like healthcare and the like are going to be the least of our problems.

GET A SPINE!!!!!

[The Count]

49. Gravel's technique should be implemented: bring the bill to vote - every day!

Until people see who's with them and who is not - and W loses support.
It took him a few months to end the draft - but that's how he did it!

[AZ Criminal JD]

111. What draft are you talking about?

The draft in the U.S. did not end that way at all. It was phased out slowly. There was no bill being voted on day after day. What misinformation.

[Mind_your_head]

52. We're screwn

*US* (we the people of these United States of America) = 0
Corporate Fascists (who are PARASITES that live off of the hard work of others) = 100%

*Mission Accomplished*

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[rudy23]

53. We had all the momentum in the world! If we'd pushed, they would've caved in no time! nt

[Greyhound]

58. It has been pointed out, time and again, that bringing it to a vote, and insisting

upon bringing it up over and over will serve the purpose of plainly showing who is willing to do the people's bidding and, more importantly, who is not. These two have abandoned even the pretense of implementing the will of the people. All they will accomplish is an equal share of the blame when the recriminations really get started and give the Republiks a veneer of respectability.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. If the people wanted Congress to undermine Bush, they should've sent the Democrats a bigger majority

Poll after poll shows that the people don't support cutting off funding for the troops, yet they want Pelosi and Reid to do something to end the war.

As far as I'm concerned America is getting exactly what it deserves. Pelosi and Reid don't have the muscle to do what Americans want them to do because America chose to re-elect people like Joe Lieberman, Trent Lott, and Olympia Snow. Therefore, we'll get all that we can with a razor thin majority and that's two years of political posturing.

[glengarry]

81. The Dems DID win a bigger majority than reported.

The Repubs stole around 15-20 House seats. The Dems should have at least 250 sets- rather than 233.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#MidTermElections

"The election fraud model projected that the Democrats would win at least 240 House seats, but lose 10-15 to fraud. It correctly forecast that they would gain control of the Senate by winning six GOP-held seats, although they barely won Virginia and Montana. The Democratic Tsunami overcame the fraud in the House and Senate.

There is no longer any doubt that the poll/vote discrepancies were caused by uncounted and switched votes. Evidence of fraud was once again found in the Final National Exit Poll which matched to the recorded vote count with the use of fallacious weightings. The 2006 Final “How Voted in 2004” weights were manipulated just like they were in the 2004 Final “How Voted in 2000.

In 2006, the weights were transformed from 47 Bush/ 45 Kerry at 7pm to 49 Bush/ 43 Kerry at 1pm the next day! This replicated the 41 Bush/39 Gore to impossible 43 Bush/ 37 Gore weight changes in 2004. The net effect of the change was to cut the Democratic margin in half -from 55-43% to 52-46%! Applying realistic weights to the 7pm NEP (using the 12:22am 2004 NEP) the Democratic margin becomes 56.7-42.1%, exactly matching the 120- Generic poll trend projection! Was it a coincidence or confirmation? You decide.

This is the best evidence that once again the Final Exit Poll was forced to match a fraudulent miscount. Simple logic dictates that if just one demographic requires impossible or implausible weights and/or vote shares in order to match the vote count, then all other demographics must be bogus as well.


Matching to the vote is nothing new; exit pollsters have been doing it long before Bush arrived on the scene and stolen elections became the norm. In the pre-BushCo world, matching the Final NEP to an essentially fraud-free recorded vote made sense - until BushCo came along and stole the 2000 election, along with repeat performances in 2002 and 2004. The 2006 Democratic Tsunami overwhelmed the fraud but the Dems still "lost" 10-15 House seats they should have won".

[Greyhound]

90. Hippo, Hippo, Hippo, I expect better from DU. How many myths are you willing to swallow?

Probably the most important, and potentially damaging, issue is what glengarry points out in the previous reply, they stole the election again just not enough to overcome the overwhelming support for change. (look for even wider-spread lying, cheating, and fraud in 2008)

Their timidity (Pelosi, Reid, and the so-called Democratic leadership), if that really is what it is, only gives the Republiks the veneer of respectability I mentioned in my reply, as well as guaranteeing that the party as a whole will share the blame for the mass murder in Iraq, instead of isolating and exposing the turn-coats that deserve it. It is well documented that the Republiks elected LIEberman, and it is only Democratic duplicity that gives him any relevance whatsoever.

The "cutting off funding for the troops" lie is another entirely Republikan construct that has no basis in reality whatsoever, and I'm surprised that you choose to repeat it. The very idea that the DOD budget of over 2/3 of a trillion dollars (not even counting the off-budget Iraq supplementals), is insufficient to equip and withdraw a couple hundred thousand troops is so ludicrous on the face of it as to force me to ask, just how stupid do you think we are?

So instead of building on the success of 2006 and expanding our majority, you are letting them make it possible for the Repibliks to not only remain relevant, but to possibly hobble the next President, and prevent the needed healing that must take place if we are to save our country. Who knows, due to the stupidity and inflexibility of our binary election system, we might even get a repeat of 2000, now wouldn't that be just fucking great?

But we sure would have a huge stockpile of unused, and therefore totally useless, totally dry, powder.:sarcasm:
:eyes:

[John Q. Citizen]

97. What do the polls show on cutting funding for the occupation? Or didn't they poll that yet?

Do they only poll on cutting funding for the troops?"

How about cutting funding for the mercenaries? What does the polling show on that? Or didn't they poll that either?

See, there ain't no damn cat and there ain't no cradle....

[Maven]

110. That's a faulty argument and a weak apology.

"America" didn't elect Joe Lieberman or Trent Lott. There was no collective "will of the people" expressed by the election of those two people. And America didn't get to vote on every incumbent senator, either.

In reality, the pendulum had to swing *pretty far* in order for Dems to enjoy the majority they currently do. THAT'S the true expression of "America's" will.

Perhaps if Dems could LEAD on the issue of doing whatever it takes to end this war, including taking the credit card away from this mad little man-child in the Oval Office, the picture might be very different. To me, "poll after poll" only evidences the Republicans' ability to control the message by equating measures to end the war with lack of "support for the troops."

[Greyhound]

128. You there?

:kick:

[Maraya1969]

59. The man abuses our soldiers, our country, our people. The Dems need to HAMMER THAT TO THE REPUBS

If they concentrate on the dishonesty and the deaths and all the other vile things this man has done they should be able to SHAME THOSE PATHETIC REPUBLICANS INTO VOTING FOR AND OVERRIDE.

IT IS NOT ABOUT BUSH! IT IS ABOUT OUR SOLDIERS. HOW THE HELL CAN THEY DENY THEM WHAT THEY NEED?

Any repub that does not vote to override the veto is as guilty of war crimes as George Bush is and they need to know it.

I hope we can get this message out to our representatives. The time for nicety's or politics is NOT when our soldier's lives and their family's lives are being ruined.

The Hell with politics now. There is a higher calling and nothing less should be accepted.

I hope we can set up another call in tomorrow and get this message across to them.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

61. Power Corrupts

(Nearly) Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

wimps.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. I think you should let Pelosi and Reid state their intentions before judging them

Instead of basing it on a vague story by the associated press.

[cqo_000]

69. Why are the troops used as an excuse to continue the war?

"support the troops" is not a legitimate or acceptable reason for being in Iraq. Democrats should be confronting this ridiculous propaganda head on! Bush is forcing the troops to stay in an unwinnable situation and for that reason alone Democrats should be taking the appropriate action to de-fund the war.

[Vinca]

71. Nothing will happen until the next election. How can it?

The King will veto whatever he wants and his minions in Congress have enough votes so the veto will be sustained. Our only hope is the 'pukes will come to the realization they will lose their next election if they keep voting for the war.

[Kablooie]

86. It's so pleasant to see Congress so intent on sucking up his bunions.

[Sparkly]

75. Setting goals for the Iraqi government is the main "teeth" imho

That's the part of the bill that pushes for the policy changes that could make withdrawal happen.

I say "could," because BushCo still has the power to do nothing.

What do you want to see Reid and Pelosi do to "end this war?"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

82. Did you just kind of glance over the first few words of that quote?

Lacking the votes to override the president...

That should tell you everything you need to know right there.

[MOD]

85. They could only cave if

they meant what they said in the first place. That is the mistake you make is assuming they meant what they said.

[Trillo]

88. I don't trust AP enough

to rule out that this release is from Republicans or the White House itself. There's entirely too much apparant control by the Executive Branch and Big Corporate over our news media.

The video I watched (and I hate watching video on a computer monitor) this morning on the DU Latest page about Pelosi and Reid's statement seems much more credible, as it's from them.

[slackmaster]

89. I just can't see how anyone could be surprised by this

:shrug:

Maybe y'all outside of California and possibly her home state of Maryland didn't really know who Nancy Pelosi was when she was coronated as Speaker.

[Jcrowley]

91. K&R

[bdamomma]

92. oh shit, geez, when is someone going to stand up against this

maniac. We are clearly not being listened too. This is definite, are they going to delete the timeline, and are they going to let the Iraqi government ( I use that word "government" loosely) set benchmarks or to be more accountable, they are living in chaos there, and what Maliki's Parliament will be going on vacation for 2 months, give a me a break huh, more dead Americans and Iraqis, and we have W with a smirk on his face declaring himself as KING. This is pure madness.

[mnhtnbb]

98. This is bullshit. Setting goals for the Iraqi government?

How about taking action as representatives in your own damn government?

[lonestarnot]

102. I told you so.

[creeksneakers2]

103. I like the compromise

I don't want our country to pull out of Iraq without giving the Iraqis the best chance possible to run the country themselves. We can't wait forever though. That's why benchmarks and temporary funding are good ideas. We'll either have progress toward getting out or we'll get out. And if there is a bloodbath after we leave, it won't be the fault of Democrats.

Leaving right now risks regional war, which could destabilize oil supplies. If oil goes up to $6 or $10 a gallon, we'll have a depression here in the US. I think its worth the risk to let the Iraqis have a little more time to see if they can control Iraq themselves.

[HughMoran]

112. Sounds like the Republican argument

...as Jon Stuart so aptly pointed out last night.

"...just give us a little more time..., we're making progress..."

BULLSHIT!

I'm not falling for that bullcrap.

[Martin Eden]

116. Has our military involvement been making Iraq more stable?

Our military presence over the last 4+ years has resulted in steadily increasing violence and has turned Iraq into the recruiting and training ground for the next generation of terrorists.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. What must be understood here is that the stated objectives cannot be achieved through military action. Beyond that, the stated objectives have been a lie from the start. Prolonging this crime will neither produce a good result nor prevent the negative consequences.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

108. Gosh, I bet nobody saw that coming!

:eyes:

[Clarkie1]

113. They did not. I support Pelosi and Reid. John Edwards is a has-been hypocrite. nt

[Martin Eden]

114. They don't want ownership of this war.

No matter what the United States does at this point, the intervention in Iraq will likely end very badly. If the Democrats in Congress take the reigns, they risk taking the blame for the inevitable consequences of chimpy's fiasco.

[greyghost]

131. Moot point...

considering we will be in Iraq until our grand children are ready to retire.

This "dust up" between Bush and Congress amounts to nothing more then semantics. We are in Iraq for the long hall.

SEE: Germany and South Korea

BTW, neither have vast oil reserves.

[Martin Eden]

133. Which Democratic candidate for president can un-moot that point?

I think it's obvious the Democratic Congress does not want to take ownership of this war.

I agree that your assessment of our long-term presence is the likely scenario.

What we need is a Democratic president who has the courage and leadership to tell the truth, stand up to the military/industrial complex, to the imperialists, to the oil interests, and do what is necessary to extract our military from Iraq.

Who among the declared candidates with a realistic chance of winning the nomination is most likely to demonstrate such leadership?

[greyghost]

136. Hopefully...

whoever gets the nod will at least get the troops out of the line of fire.

No one is going to completely pull out of the country.

[rodeodance]

115. Pelosi and Bush BOTH echoing 'common ground" several times today.

[mzmolly]

117. What the hell is a "Democratic signal?"

Sorry, I don't buy this reporters spin. I'm looking at the statements by Reid and Pelosi, in that article and I don't see any such "signal."

:shrug: Edited to add diplomatic shrug.

[The Gunslinger]

118. I hope thats not true

They would make the Decider look like a steadfast hero to the fox viewers of the world. Why bother in the first place if you were just going to cave.

[leftwing9]

123. Here's an idea...

...Come back with a bill with MORE money, but a slightly EARLIER pull-out date. Increase funding for emergency vehicles and training for Iraqi security forces...but don't cave on the withdrawal.

That will show voters who sides with the troops while daring Bush to look like a child again.

[EV_Ares]

127. Tired of both of them. They always seem to cave, they need to just

draw the line in the sand, fight for what is right and I agree with Edwards, send another bill back with a timetable for withdrawal out of Iraq. However, they just simply cave, evidently think everyone else is idiots and will think they did all they could.

[Duer 157099]

129. Talk to them! Call them now!

toll-free numbers here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=812154&mesg_id=812154

[ecstatic]

130. I wish I knew what was going on in their minds

I mean, are they outraged over this war? If they are, I can't imagine them not fighting Bush tooth and nail every step of the way. I just wish I could truly know what they are thinking.

[greyghost]

132. You really don't...

want too.

We're going to be in Iraq until our grand children are collecting their pensions. The only thing that is going to be decided is which side wins their civil war.