Why can't Pelosi pass a bill that makes not having enough votes to pass a bill irrelevant?

[zulchzulu]

OK. There aren't enough votes so far to pass a veto-proof bill ending the war tomorrow...no, wait...yesterday.

Yeah, we need votes to pass bills. So what! That doesn't matter now! People voted to end the war 17,020,800 seconds ago (and counting). OK, it was 6 months and 16 days...whatever!

We need to end the war! And Pelosi and Reid need to know that even if they don't have the votes to pass a bill to end the war, they still need to pass the bill! We are tired of waiting for them to stop the war! Why can't they get it in their thick head that the war must end!

They need to pass the veto-proof resolution to end the war even if they don't have the votes to do it!

:sarcasm:

[whistle]

1. You are so right, all they have to do to end the war is get Bush/Cheney out

...and that is impeachment. Get that done and the votes will follow

[zulchzulu]

2. Actually I was kidding...

I wholeheartedly agree with you about impeaching Cheney first, then Bush.

The votes still aren't there yet unfortunately. Why? I have no idea why.

Impeaching both Cheney and Bush IS the Congress' constitutional duty.

[whistle]

4. It is their duty and they need to keep pushing that even if they

...have to cancel the summer recess to do it

[Canuckistanian]

3. Can't fault your logic

99% of politics is perception, not mathematics.

[tkmorris]

5. Fair enough, but I have a question

I am not one of those running in circles with my hair on fire over this, but it seems to me you are leaving something out.

The Dems don't NEED a veto-proof majority. All they have to do is not pass a funding bill. I can see arguments that might be made against doing that but you can't leave that out and portray it as a simple matter of needing a veto-proof bill. That's disingenuous.

[zulchzulu]

7. What a perfect thing to do! Give the Repigs a wonderful issue to run on in 2008!

Utter pure genius!

Let's let the Repigs run ads in 2008 that say that Democrats are not supporting the troops by not passing funding for body armor, tanks, weapons and other support.

Then again, the Repigs would never ever resort to negative politics. I know, my bad...

:sarcasm:

[tkmorris]

10. I wasn't suggesting it

I was simply pointing out that leaving options other than a veto-proof bill out of the debate isn't intellectually honest. BTW, I'm not your enemy here. I am merely trying to have the discussion at a reasonable level,

[zulchzulu]

12. I think the only war to send a message to Bush to stop the occupation is...

..to have a veto-proof resolution that doesn't give Bush ANY choices.

I appreciate your dialogue...I'm just as upset as you are that the occupation continues...but we need to put some reality into the situation. We need iron-clad legislation that is bi-partisan and I'm hopeful that the possibility will be there in the fall.

[JDPriestly]

16. As I recall, the Republicans refused to pass a budget bill under Clinton.

Wasn't it around that time that the Clinton/Monica affair began? Why can't Democrats be as steadfast as the Republicans were? There is no harm in letting the president worry about getting the money to keep his government going. Make the president compromise for a change. From what I can tell, Bush brought nothing to the table. He has given nothing in exchange for getting everything. What kind of ninnies are Reid and Pelosi. I cannot believe this.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Actually the GOP's stubbornness in the budget debacle saved Clinton's presidency

Clinton was able to paint Gingrich as a rightwing nutjob and stand firmly on the popular issue of Medicare. Gingrich's plan was entirely based on the assumption that Clinton would cave to prevent shutting down the government. Clinton didn't cave and turned the tables making the Republicans look unreasonable. The Republicans were the ones who ultimately had to cave signing another continuing resolution until after the election in hope that Dole would win in November and they could do whatever they wanted to the budget after Clinton was out. But unfortunately for them, Clinton was popular again and had no trouble beating Dole.

[mike_c]

6. they don't even need to do that....

The whole veto-proof margin argument is a scam. All the house dem leadership needs to do is tie up the supplemental appropriations, or better yet, honor their constitutional responsibilities and REFUSE to appropriate. End of war. No votes needed. Not a single one. No veto. No override. This the Congress's constitutional check against the powers of the executive to wage war. It's not controversial. It's not radical. It's what the founding fathers wrote into the Constitution of the United States.

Bush assaults the constitution. Congress denies it.

[zulchzulu]

8. So Congress just stops bills and doesn't vote...except one teeny, minor thing...

If Pelosi said that Congress is no longer going to fund the war, do you think any of the Republicans would want to pass legislation that overrides her decision?

Did you forget to mention that you need to chainlock all the Republicans in the Congress kitchen walk-in refrigerators so that they couldn't protest Pelosi's decision?

[mike_c]

9. republicans CANNOT pass legislation that overrides her decision....

Remember, control of the legislative agenda was what crippled dems in congress for nearly two decades, and particularly during the last six years.

The democratic party leadership controls the legislative agenda. As long as the republicans are in the minority, they cannot win a challenge-- they cannot even BRING a challenge unless the dem leadership agrees.

Furthermore, any real challenge to Pelosi's leadership can ONLY come from the democrats. As majority party, they choose the speaker.

Republicans could protest all they want. They could not do anything but whine. Nothing. Unless, of course, the dems were prepared to throw out their historic speaker.

Not. Going. To. Happen. Not to prolong the war against Iraq.

on edit-- and no, Congress doesn't just "stop bills." I refuses an appropriation. That is its constitutional prerogative.

[zulchzulu]

11. How many Democrats are willing to be pinned as not supporting the troops in 2008?

That's how it would be spun. If you think that a lot of Democrats are willing to be seen as playing games with troop safety in harm's way in an election year cycle, then I don't know what to tell you.

The current funding would go up to September 30. As more Republicans peel off the Bush War Train as 2008 approaches, there might well be a solution in the fall to fully send legislation that forces Bush's hand and begins to stop the occupation.

[mike_c]

13. this supplemental simply KEEPS troops in harms way longer than necessary...

...but again, that is a smoke screen anyway. The supplemental is to pay for the additional costs of crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan. Troop costs are covered largely by the normal defense appropriations bill. What proportion of the supplemental appropriations actually "supports the troops" in any meaningful way? Dems could turn that argument around quickly if they weren't so content to let republicans frame the debate.

Dems are buying themselves a war, plain and simple. They could prevent an appropriations without even allowing a vote, just the way the republicans controlled congress before 2006. Who would get "pinned" if there simply was no vote? Pelosi for sure-- but she's utterly safe in her district-- I assure you, they'd cheer her in the streets-- and as long as the dem majority stands behind their speaker-- an historic figure-- can you really see the dems throwing out Madame Speaker Pelosi in order to prolong the war against Iraq?-- the republicans could not do a thing. Let them try to build their base in San Francisco in revenge.... Bwahahahaha....

[Hole in the Void]

14. You can claim troop support by bringing them home...

...it's the broader regional war and genocide that would be hard to spin to an advantage...or non-disadvantage.

Face it: the PNACs stirred up a hornets nest over there. If you don't mind watching the Turks roll into Kurdistan; the Iranians move into southern Iraq, the Arab Gulf states mobilize to counter Iran and a 6-way civil war in Iraq we can leave today.

Cost: several hundred thousand dead and millions displaced.

But the dems will be saddled with the blame.

REMEMBER: Nixon pulled the US out of Vietnam, but liberals get the blame for Pol Pot.

We've been snookered...again.

[zulchzulu]

19. So since we don't have the votes, do we drive over there and pick the troops up?

I have a Honda Civic...maybe fit a couple troops. You?

[Bitwit1234]

15. I beg to differ

they probably have enough votes to pass the resolution..what they don't have is, if they pass a bill, and bush vetos it, enough votes to over ride his veto. Just a resolution would probably pass.

[Hole in the Void]

17. That's the point then, isn't it?

Should the dems:

A) Ignore supplemental requests altogether and allow the war to die a blood-moneyless death

B) Pass supplementals but with amendments that will end the war...after a lot more dead GIs come home

C) Pass supplementals that will get vetoed and allow the war to die of cash-starvation

D) Surrender in the face of an implaccable enemy

Do you feel like giving the war supporters all the money they ask for over the next decade and a half?

The dems can easily claim all the credit for getting troops out of Iraq...and all the blame for what happen afterwards. They can save hundreds of US lives at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives and subsequently they may very well throw away their political future when the electorate saddles them with the blame for the regional war and genocide. It will reinforce every republican stereotype of democrats being weak on defense and blase to the ambitions of tyrants. That is a hard image to shake and it will hurt in future elections as the Muslim-on-Muslim body counts are broadcast on CNN during those future election cycles. The democrats won't be able to say, "Well, let's go in to stop the genocide like we did in Kosovo and Bosnia" because the obvious response will be, "we were already there and you told us to leave."

I think the question really becomes:

Will you throw away the democratic party on a one-time bid to end the Iraq war?

I repeat: we was snookered.

[mike_c]

18. in short, yes....

The democratic party is in this position BECAUSE of their weakness and inability to lead. The war against Iraq is a crime against humanity that undermines my country's honor. Would I chose ending the war over the survivorship of a weak and ineffectual party that has demonstrated it's willingness to be complicit in crimes against humanity?

Yes.

[zulchzulu]

20. Perhaps in September when this funding ends, many Repugs will jump ship

I believe that is the strategy. The September benchmark has even been mentioned by Boehner, the minority Republican. The votes aren't there now...

[Heath Hatcher]

23. Quoted for Truth Zulchzulu

Your right on about what your saying. The fact is that the GOP votes on withdrawal just aren't there right because there all banking on the Surge to work out. But by September when the money runs out and when the GOP members in swing districts realize that the war isn't working and it's political sucide to keep supporting Bush then they will jump ship. We just need a little faith, patience and some call to our Congresscritters, that will help alot.

BTW DU forgive me for my optimism, I have always been considered a "glass half full kinda guy"

[sinkingfeeling]

21. Right on!