A few questions for those DUers who feel "betrayed" by the Democrats regarding Iraq

[onenote]

At the outset, let me be clear as to my position: I would like to see the US start pulling its troops out of Iraq immediately with the goal of getting them all out within 60 or 90 days. But I also realize that isn't going to happen, so my hope is for some movement in that direction, hopefully beginning with the next funding vote.

Having said that, I am totally dumbfounded by the DUers who claim to have been "betrayed" by the Democratic congress with regard to Iraq. A few questions:

Can you point to any statement that indicates that defunding and immediate withdrawal is part of the Democratic Party's official agenda or platform?

During the 2006 campaign, did the Democratic candidate that you supported for Congress expressly state that he/she favored defunding and immediate withdrawal? Did your candidate win? How did they vote with respect to defunding.

My point is that I don't see how anyone who was paying attention six months ago during the campaign could now claim to be "betrayed" by a Democratic caucus that with near unanimity passed a funding/timetable bill and, when that bill was vetoed, adopted a bill funding the war through September with some, albeit weak, "accountability" provisions. I'd be surprised if you can point to more than a couple (if any) Democrats who called for immediate withdrawal during the campaign and who then turned around and supported funding. If you can, I'd like to see the names and the links showing their position before/after the vote.

[Justitia]

1. There is something to be said for having an actual Opposition Party. That is all. -eom

[movonne]

2. ditto..

[doggyboy]

3. And there's something to be said for posting more than snark

.

[Justitia]

10. Excuse me, that was not 'snark'. I feel very strongly about the role of Opposition in gov't.

Don't presume to judge my genuineness.

The role of Opposition is very, very important to me and to many others in the pursuit of democracy.

I value the role of Opposition higher than any political party.

[doggyboy]

18. I disagree

Implying the dems do not oppose the repukes, without any content to support it, makes it nothing more than snark.

[Justitia]

21. Well, that's your ill informed opinion, & you're welcome to it. -eom

[onenote]

4. Not a response to any of the questions posed.

Did you vote for a Democrat for Congress? Did they win? Did they pledge to support immediate withdrawal?

[Justitia]

15. Of course & no. My reply is more of a long sigh, not vitriolic.

I believe in Opposition, and I'm just very disappointed in it's absence here (w/this particular vote).

[Virginia Dare]

12. So you can see absolutely no differences between

the two parties?

[Justitia]

19. Of course not - I'm a Democrat to my bones. But Opposition predates our party. -eom

[Robbien]

5. They ignored you this time, but you are so sure they are going to listen to you next time

Sure they are

You do not count. DC Dems are going to vote however they like.

Just keep sending them your money and make sure you keep voting for them.

[onenote]

6. who ignored who?

(or is it whom?)

BTW, I voted for a candidate (Andy Hurst) who supported immediate withdrawal. He lost. I voted for a candidate (Jim Webb) who did not support immediate withdrawal. He won. Do I feel betrayed? Not in the slightest. I knew what Webb's position was when I voted for him and he did exactly what he said he would do. Am I glad I voted for him? Definitely. He's worlds better than George Allen.

[truedelphi]

27. I noticed that Jim Webb voted for the Supplemental Funding Bill

Although I am sure that his reasons are a lot purer than Senator Feinstiein's, what are his reasons (I live on the West Coast, so his actions and thoughts are not discussed much here)

I really admire Webb, but wonder what led him to vote for it.

[Virginia Dare]

32. Go to his website, he has a very detailed explanation..n/t

[Virginia Dare]

9. What about those of us with Repubbie reps..

should we just stop giving our money to the Dem candidates and throw in the towel, since they'll probably just betray us anyway if they get elected?..:shrug:

[muffin1]

37. Exactly...

I'm pretty new to DU, but what is with all of the giving up around here?
We HAVE to keep fighting or will have Bush/Cheney types in office until eternity. Fred Thompson, anyone?
:)

[Virginia Dare]

7. My Dem candidate who ran against Tom Davis in VA...

part of his platform was to bring the troops home, but he lost. Also, Jim Webb ran on a platform against Bush's war policies, but I don't recall him ever advocating a defunding strategy.

The defunding strategy seems to be one embraced by the high profile anti-war groups, but they've yet to convince me it will work without getting a veto-proof bill through. Bush HAS to be taken out of the equation for any strategy to work, that is the bottom line.

[onenote]

8. Hey, we must be neighbors!!

[Virginia Dare]

11. Cool!..

Andy Hurst is working on Edwards' campaign now, I wished he'd a won it!!

[onenote]

13. I was looking wistfully at my Andy Hurst banner just this weekend

We hosted a fundraiser for Andy during the campaign and I found a banner in the basement. I can't decide what to do with it. I'd like to think that he'll give it another go in 2008, but I keep hearing that Gerry Conally will get the nod.

[peacebird]

23. Webb advocated withdrawing troops, but voted to fund the war

from wiki - "The chief focus of Webb's campaign was the war in Iraq. Webb opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, stating in a 2002 speech to the Naval Postgraduate School, "We should not occupy territory in Iraq. Do you really want the United States on the ground in that region for a generation? I don't think Iraq is that much of a threat." Webb has described security policy under President Bush as "a complete failure" and favors a withdrawal of troops from Iraq."

and yes - I am very disappointed in him for that vote. Makes me worry his rebuttal of the SOTU was just so much hot air.

[Virginia Dare]

28. Yes, and he explained why...

I accept it, whether I fully agree with it or not, I think he is still committed to a full withdrawal of our troops.

[jmp]

14. Since when ...

Since when do campaign positions mean anything? They know why they were elected. They know how we feel about the war. They chose to ignore our demands ... and voted to keep feeding our soldiers into the meat grinder in Iraq.

Call it whatever you like ... but it's not going to change how people feel about it.

[onenote]

20. Huh?

And I don't expect to change how people feel about it. Just trying to understand why/how they feel that way. In your case its because you think that when a candidate (take Jim Webb for example) clearly states that he's not in favor of immediate withdrawal that he really doesn't mean it? Ok.

[jmp]

33. ...

Every last one of them is a liar. For example ... when they say they didn't have enough votes to force the President to end the war. They lie.

Did they say they would stop the war immediately? No. Bush didn't say that Saddam was behind 9/11 either. Both messages were implied.

[Virginia Dare]

41. So, they do have enough votes to force Bush to end the war?

Then why isn't it ended? Remember the bill they sent to him with timetables that he vetoed?

I think that actually what was implied was that they would put pressure on Bush to end the war, and they have, and they will continue to do so.

It's disappointing that they haven't been able to do anything substantive yet, but by no means a betrayal. When Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid stand at the podiuma and say we will no longer oppose President Bush's war initiatives, then I will concede betrayal.

[jmp]

53. the dems funded it

So, they do have enough votes to force Bush to end the war? Then why isn't it ended?

Because they funded it.

[Virginia Dare]

61. Most Democrats voted against it...n/t

[atreides1]

16. There are no provisions

Those "accountability" provisions aren't just weak, a piece of tissue paper has more strength then they do!

As for being "betrayed" I never thought they were going to actually grow a complete spine, at least not in this short period of time. They got the minimum wage done, and that's important, perhaps in time they'll a true opposition party.

Maybe by September they might have a fully formed backbone and will have learned how to use it!!!

[Virginia Dare]

30. Getting more Republicans to bolt Bush's failed policies..

would help more than backbone at this point.

[Breeze54]

17. Really? Google is your friend.

"I'd be surprised if you can point to more than a couple (if any) Democrats who called for immediate withdrawal during the campaign and who then turned around and supported funding. If you can, I'd like to see the names and the links showing their position before/after the vote."

You, my fellow DUer, have sorely 'missed' the point. ouch!

[onenote]

22. Please, then, tell me the point?

I think of betrayal as something that you feel when someone promises one thing and then does another. I asked for evidence of such betrayal. Still waiting.

[Breeze54]

51. Google is your friend

Do your own research...

[onenote]

56. If that's your way of saying you don't know your own representatives positions, its pretty funny

But I'll bite: tell me the names of your senators and representatives and I'll look up their positions

[Breeze54]

64. Hey

You are funny, onenote. :rofl: (at you)

[Dhalgren]

24. So it would seem, then, that the "anti-war crowd" either were stupid to

have expected the Democrats to act other than as they did, or they are now being stupid for expecting the unattainable. You say that you "now realize that isn't going to happen," meaning the withdrawal of troops from the Iraqi Occupation. Why is it not going to happen? And what made you realize it now? It may be that the anti-war movement put too much hope in the Democrats vows of opposition to the occupation, but now we know that the Democrats are going to, at best, take it very slowly and, for them, safely - while thousands more die in Iraq. Regardless of whether the Democratic Party willfully misled the anti-war folks or whether the anti-war folks were just too dim to see the real agenda of the Democratic Party, the results are the same: the anti-war movement is currently without a political home.

[onenote]

29. I meant its not going to happen in the next 60 to 90 days

I will (and am) making every effort to convince my representatives to support legislation to commence withdrawal in September.

[Dhalgren]

34. Why will it not happen in the next 60 to 90 days? And why did you think

before that it would? Or why did you have hopes before that it would?

You went back and edited your OP to take out the part that I quoted from you. That's not very cricket...

[onenote]

38. Because they passed a funding bill?

I never said I thought it would, I said it was what I would like to see happen. Did I have hopes? Maybe not realistic ones. I was hoping that, with a substantial majority of Americans favoring a timetable bill, there would be repub defections from chimpy that would force the establishment of a timetable. The 60 to 90 days I would like was never realistic...I'll admit that.

[Dhalgren]

46. I see that you are going to stick with the Democrats and blame the Republicans on

every issue, even when it is the Democrats who are at fault. That's fine, belonging to something bigger than yourself definitely has its benefits. I'll just go my own way, thanks. :hi:

[Virginia Dare]

35. Then until more Americans get behind the anti-war movement..

they render themselves irrelevant. I don't think the so-called "anti-war" folks are too dim to see the real agenda, I think they're too dim to see political reality.

By the way, I consider myself "anti-war", but I don't associate with any "anti-war" group.

[Dhalgren]

40. This is why the Democrats are on the way down. They have no

qualms about dumping the one who brought them to the dance. Well, the escort may eventually stop asking them out...

[Virginia Dare]

45. Actually, the Democrats are on the way up...

Mitch McConnell is already conceding that they most probably won't retake the Senate in 2008. Most of the political research that I've been seeing is predicting a strong Democratic showing in the next couple of years.

The anti-war groups will be back on board soon, they're just in a snit right now. There is no third party that's going to magically rise from the sea next year.

[Dhalgren]

48. Maybe for one cycle, two at most, then, well, we'll see...

:hi:

[Virginia Dare]

50. That's all it will take.....n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. My choice was to vote for a DINO or a Xtian rw lunatic

who wanted to ban abortion and make Christianity the official state religion. My vote was against him rather than for the Dem who won. It's a choice of cancer and poliio, sad to say.

[onenote]

39. Understood. But you can't really say you were "betrayed" by a DINO can you?

You knew what you were getting. Sometimes the better of two evils is what we have to choose between.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

130. Yes, I feel I can

because even Pryor in talks on AETN stated he would do things differently than he voted.

[Clovis Sangrail]

26. It's an issue of moral fibre

What somebody says about what they will do next year *does bare on my opinion of them.
What somebody does today bares *more on my opinion of them.

In my opinion, and aparently that of many others, the Democratic leadership showed a distinct lack of backbone or moral fibre.

A vote to continue unchecked funding of an immoral war is wrong.
Period. Full Stop.

That they did so even though they had the support of the public just makes it that much more unpalatable.

[onenote]

47. I wish they did have the support of the public for defunding. But the fact is that they didn't

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/washington/25view.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1180120512-zyIbZvJFxdrFbP/faCd3HQ&oref=slogin

Only 13 percent supported blocking all funding.

[Virginia Dare]

52. Thanks for pointing that very salient point out...

I wish people would stop equating withdrawal with defunding. Defunding is something that certain anti-war groups were demanding, not the American people as a whole.

[Clovis Sangrail]

89. the measure that was vetoed DIDN'T "defund" the war

it tied funding to accountability and started the process of ending this debacle (which most, very definitely, want ended)

[Tom Joad]

31. Right. I do not feel betrayed. I am surprised the Dems even pretended to want to end the

occupation of Iraq.
rahm and others were recruiting candidates who took no strong position on Iraq (or supported the war).

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. Yes many candidates expressly stated that they favored

immediate withdrawl. One I did some work for. Then she went and said she supported the surge the day she was sworn in.

I was paying attention and yes, I do feel betrayed.

[onenote]

42. name of representative?

No reason to hide the identity of someone who reneges on a campaign pledge.

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. Nancy Boyda

[MuseRider]

76. I am right there with you.

I am furious with her. We need to find someone to run against her.

[proud2BlibKansan]

87. And check out the email I just received:

With this news story, is it any wonder that people are losing faith in the
Democratic Party and the U.S. Political System in general and demanding a
new way of life, where democracy isn't a joke?

Earlier this week, Anti-war Activist Cindy Sheehan "resigned from the
anti-war movement" because of the anti-war movement's blind support for
the Democrats.

Link to that story here:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070529061018245

...while our own representative, Nancy Boyda proves Cindy's point. From
the Journal World today:

"If Bush continues to veto spending bills with withdrawal timetables,
there just aren’t that many Democrats who are willing to let the funds run
out. That’s especially true of those who got elected in swing House
districts, underscoring the reality that Democrats can’t keep their
majority by appealing to their base alone. “I’m going to vote for it if it
has a timetable, and I’m going to vote for it if it doesn’t have a
timetable, because I’m going to vote to fund the war,” said freshman Nancy
Boyda. The Republican-leaning part of Kansas she represents, Boyda said,
“was not going to send someone to Congress who was going to end the war
immediately.”"

Gee, Nancy, is that why you said you wanted to end the war while you were campaigning? I take it none of those republicans you so desperately want to please now that you are in office were interested in working on your campaign, eh? Well you better butter up to 'em now then cause none of us will be helping you out again!

[MuseRider]

94. That is total bullshit.

You do not get elected in Kansas if there are not quite a few Republicans voting for you. She ran on getting us out of the war, they voted for her. My guess is that it will be the last time many of them vote for a Democrat. She screwed herself and us right along with her by doing the opposite of what she ran on. I guess I will have to get used to Ryun again because she is never going to get re elected now.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. Name one vote of hers that was different from how Ryun would have voted

Just one.

We got control of the House and I sure am enjoying those hearings but DAMN, Boyda is not much different from Ryun, is she?

[MuseRider]

126. She supports the hate crimes law

and she damned well better support it. I have been burning up minutes on my cell calling her office. I sent letters and petitions and called several times. She promised and I got support for her but I am just waiting for that to go down as well as she gets comfortable with her position and her ability to get away with screwing us. Other than that it may as well be Ryun.

I just hate this because she is a very nice person and I really liked her the few times I have spoken to her. Why oh why?? We were all so happy. :cry:

[proud2BlibKansan]

129. Ah it's all good Muse

We have just lived and learned.

And BTW, I have been meaning to thank you for making me go down to Crawford 2 years ago. It really changed my life and it's all your fault.

I can never repay you for this you know. :hug:

[MuseRider]

132. Hey sweetie

I would not have driven down there by myself the first time so I owe you for going with me. Really, did we know each other well enough to share that bed? LOL, I probably kept you awake snoring all night so who owes who? It was seriously one of the best times of my life. You and Dancing Bear and Uppity Person...who else? It was all such a blur and reminded me so much of our past with the Vietnam war. It was truly a spiritual experience, one that I will never quite recover from and that is a good thing. :hug: back at you.

Lived and learned, now if we could just drag the rest of the state along with us we might have something there.

[onenote]

106. from info on Boyda's website, she seemed to be looking for a middle ground during the campaign

Not pledging immediate withdrawal. For example, an transcript of an online interview conducted October 11, 2006, quotes her as follows:

"It has been argued that there are only two solutions to the War in Iraq - stay the course or leave. Is there a middle ground and can you see benifit to a middle ground?

Nancy Boyda: YES! Of course there is middle ground. The Republicans have framed the discussion to "are you for cut and run or are you for stay the course?" It's done a great deal to STOP real discussion and make sure NO solutions are found. We can't solve these important issues with quick slogans...our democracy depends on a discussion of the issues. The Baker Iraq study group will certainly be looking for middle ground. Thank heaven!"

Doesn't sound like a pledge to support immediate withdrawal.


http://www.nancyforcongress.com/news.php

[proud2BlibKansan]

118. She told her supporters she wanted to end the war

I was at a couple of her rallies. So was MuseRider. We both heard her say she wanted the troops to come home ASAP. Also, she used to be part of our peace community here and even helped organize our rallies.

So we had every reason to believe she would vote to end the war.

[mike_c]

43. the fact that the democratic leadership has never truly opposed...

...crimes against humanity in Iraq IS their betrayal. I don't care that the supplemental funding vote was consistent with their past position-- in that sense you're right, they did not betray their fundamental support for the war against Iraq. But I consider that position itself a betrayal of the will of the voters, and more importantly, a betrayal of democratic values. The democratic party leadership does not represent my values or those of most of my friends. We feel betrayed by that because we supported the democratic party.

[Virginia Dare]

49. There are two issues..

the will of the voters is to get us out of Iraq, however, the will of the voters is not to accomplish it by defunding the Troops.

[mike_c]

57. um-- what's the regular defense appropriation for...

...if not to "fund the troops." Few congressional dems have been honest about this-- Kucinich is an outspoken rarity. But the supplemental appropriation is to pay for the additional costs of maintaining aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, not for "funding the troops." That's just more political manipulation and misdirection. It's used to obscure the real issue-- congressional dems AND repubs are mostly united in their desire to "win" the war against Iraq, even if they don't really have much of a clue what that means. I think they are well aware of the stakes, however-- U.S. hegemony in the oil rich middle east-- and they're equally committed to pursuing that objective.

Funding the troops is a smokescreen to hide what is really going on here-- the pursuit of a fundamentally flawed foreign policy that neither party seems able to divorce themselves from.

[Virginia Dare]

60. I'm just giving you the facts..

most Americans were not behind this tactic. I guess you think all of these Democrats should have been willing commit political suicide in a futile attempt at getting Bush to see reason. The bottom line is, this would not have brought the troops home, there was nothing to be gained in the long run.

[mike_c]

66. it's not as staightforward as you want to make it appear....

Check this out:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/11/poll_more_americans_favor_congress_withholding_funds_in_face_of_veto

[onenote]

68. Interesting. Thanks for passing it along

[Virginia Dare]

77. I don't see anything straightforward about any of it..

which is why I don't think there has been a blatant and willful "betrayal" on the part of the Democrats. I've seen no concrete evidence of this.

[welshTerrier2]

44. nice strawman

i'll show you mine if you show me yours.

it is a total disgrace that a single troop is expected to remain in Iraq for even one more day. we all understand that there will be ZERO progress and that it is unconscionable to condemn anyone to risk their lives when there is ZERO possibility of success.

having said that, i'll respond to the question in the OP as follows:

i did NOT say that the Dems "betrayed" us when they sent up the first bill to bush that contained withdrawal timetables. I did NOT see the term used at that time. in spite of the fact that I was strongly opposed to the bill and hated that the Dems wouldn't just cut-off funding for everything except the safe withdrawal of troops, I did NOT complain about the bill they sent bush.

now, when I and many others have referred to this last bill as "betrayal", you want us to demonstrate where the Dems ever said they were calling for immediate withdrawal. The betrayal was the total cave-in by the Dems to send bush a bill without timetables. The Dems, if they didn't have the spine to cut-off funding completely, should have sent a bill back to bush with the exact same conditions. the bill they did send him should never have come to the floor.

so, you show me a broad spectrum response to the first bill that was harshly critical of the Democrats. we elected them to stop the damned war. if it had to be on a mushy, ill-advised timetable, there was clearly a willingness to compromise and not criticize. this last bill was not a compromise; it was a cowardly, run for the hills, betrayal. the betrayal was not because the Dems didn't call for immediate withdrawal; the betrayal was because they gave bush all the unrestricted funds he wanted and more ...

[onenote]

54. Sending back the exact same bill is the same as not sending back a bill at all

The result would be the same. The funding would run out and there would be no funding.

[mike_c]

58. "...not sending back a bill at all..."

...is precisely what the House should have done.

[Virginia Dare]

62. To what ends?

what would it have accomplished, and I'm talking substantive, not symbolic?

[Clovis Sangrail]

96. it would have conveyed the will of the people?

That is their job.... and it does seem the majority of the public now wants us out of Iraq.

They would have been accused by Bushco of "defunding the troops".
They were anyways and will be again .

[Virginia Dare]

104. That to me is symbolic if that is all it accomplishes..

and if that's all you're after, then the first bill that was sent up and vetoed did that.

[Clovis Sangrail]

113. 0.0

You can call it "symbolic".. but it is their job.
It is the core principle our government is based on.

Yes, the first bill that was sent up did do this.

Did the "will of the people" change between the time they sent that one and the last?
No. It didn't.
The only thing that changed was President Bush vetoed it.

Guess what?
They don't represent President Bush... they represent us.
(OK OK... at least a few of them represent Bush)

[onenote]

116. and in our system of checks and balances, the president has a veto and congress can override

Democrats continued to follow the will of the people when they voted in favor of an override. Unfortunately, the "people" also elected a lot of repubs -- and those repubs voted against an override. How this is the Democrats fault (which is what some DUers seem to think) is a mystery to me. In any event, either those repubs weren't representing their constituents, in which case they should pay for it in 2008 or will hear enough complaints about it to change their own course in September, or they are representing the will of their particular districts/states and will hold their position without incurring the wrath of voters.

That is how the system we have accounts for the will of the people.

[Clovis Sangrail]

119. So keeping the war going was the will of the people?

Interesting take on things.
Completely opposed to all the polls but interesting none the less.

All of the people supporting what they did seem to come back to this idea that they didn't have enough votes to override a veto.
They didn't need to override a veto.

They provided a bill with that funding.
They could have passed the same thing and sent it back up with no negotiation.
Without overriding a veto.

Instead, as they should, they negotiated.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, their idea of negotiation was Bush refuses to compromise... they called it a "victory".
:eyes:


(personally I think the original bill was a compromise already)

[onenote]

121. and chimpy would've vetoed it again

Stalemate. And it would've been great if there was a way to force chimpy to compromise, but there was absolutely no reason to think he was going to. Why? Because he felt that, at the end of the day, he held the trump card, which was that allowing funding to end on the eve of Memorial Day would've played badly for the Democrats and therefore a funding bill would be enacted.

[Clovis Sangrail]

123. and... ?

So they keep sending it to him.
The clear message would be there are no other bills forthcoming and if he wants this war to continue, even as far as the bill allows, this is his only choice.
They could even tell him he could expect forthcoming bills to be even more restrictive.

In absence of funding the troops would have to come home... and I really doubt it would be hard to get a veto proof majority to provide funds to bringing them home in absence of other funds.

The only reason this "would have" played badly for the democrats is if they let it do so.
(party PR is atrocious)

IMHO it has played badly for them... likely as bad or worse than if they had stood their ground.

[Virginia Dare]

137. absence of funding the troops would have to come home..

false premise.

[Clovis Sangrail]

147. how is that a false premise?

are you suggesting the war machine can run on sand?

No money == no war
Pretty simple.

[Kolesar]

63. Public opinion does not support letting the funds run out

...and leaving it to the Pentagon how to finance "operation packing up and going home" through shifting some funds around. I don't think even a majority of Democrats are ready for that. I would credit the lame media information market for that, but nonetheless the public is not ready.

[welshTerrier2]

67. public opinion

could have been shaped by a real opposition party ... it's a little bit of a sham to point to public opinion that the Democrats did such a poor job trying to shape ...

[Kolesar]

69. Yes, maybe, but that is not to the point of my post or of this thread

I don't want my party to have to "do the Jane Fonda" for another three decades.

[mike_c]

70. see #66....

eom

[welshTerrier2]

65. and your point is?

if bush doesn't want to set even reasonable timetables and whines and whines and stamps his feet and turns down the money with the conditions the majority party set, then let him be sent a bill that would fund only the safe and rapid withdrawal of all troops ... the Dems should have sent him back the same bill with a warning that, if he vetoed it again, they would fund only for withdrawal. instead of laying down the law and laying down their terms, the little chickens gave away everything ...

Democrats voted to give bush more money for more insanity with ZERO possibility of any progress whatsoever. i call that unconscionable.

do you believe any progress will be made in Iraq during this next funding period? if not, what sense does it make to allow bush to continue as before?

[onenote]

72. If that position had public support, wouldn't Kucinich be doing better in the polls?

And even among Democrats, he's not exactly setting the world on fire.

[Virginia Dare]

73. delete...

misread the question...

[welshTerrier2]

79. just to be clear ...

in response to my question: do you believe any progress will be made in Iraq during this next funding period?, you are saying "Yes, I do?"

is that correct?

so, after more than 4 years of madness, after hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, after we've completely destroyed Iraq's infrastucture and any semblance of hope for the Iraqi people, after the "surge", after increasing numbers killed per day, after Maliki has shown himself to be nothing but a bush-bot, after near civil war, and even with bush/cheney still in the WH calling the shots, you remain optimistic that progress in Iraq can be made during the next funding period?

i envy you your optimism ...

[onenote]

81. Virginia Dare can speak for herself, but it seems to me you are misreading her answer

What I took her answer to mean was that "yes, I think that there will be progress towards getting legislation through congress to start ending our involvment by the end of the current funding period."

[Virginia Dare]

86. Yes, you're correct, I will edit, thanks...n/t

[welshTerrier2]

88. that's why i asked my question again

if your read of her answer is correct, she answered a question I didn't ask. no problem with that; i just wanted to understand what she was saying.

[Virginia Dare]

84. Sorry, I misread...

I meant that I think the Democrats will be able to make progress toward withdrawal during the next funding period. As far as progress in the war, no I think it will get worse.

[welshTerrier2]

92. and your position on this last bill?

thanks for clarifying, Virginia.

and I agree with you - of course it will get worse. i wish someone would explain to me how letting a bill come to the floor that takes away any and all meaningful restrictions on bush to fund his occupation when no progress is possible is anything but unconscionable?

this we didn't have the votes is nonsense. no, the Democrats didn't have the votes to override a veto. but Reid did not have to let a bill come to the floor that lacked any timetable at all. the Democrats needed to tell bush and the American people that the first bill they sent him was the best he was going to be offered. they should have told the American people they believed it was the most responsible way to proceed and that they were not going to let bush bully them into letting him continue his occupation unconditionally. they should have spoken directly to the American people and showed them in no uncertain terms that it was bush, not the Democrats, who was refusing the funding. they should have explained that if bush rejected their compromise offer (i.e. the first bill), they would give him a choice to have the exact same bill sent back to him or they would fund only the safe and rapid withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. it was bush's choice to make between the two options ...

instead, they funded more occupation and more death and more destruction for a cause that cannot and will not see an iota of progress ... how can that be seen as anything but unconscionable?

if you're interested, you might want to take a read on my more detailed post on this subject: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3284300

[Virginia Dare]

93. In a word, I think it SUCKS!

but I'm not convinced that simply doing nothing would have accomplished anything substantive. It certainly wouldn't have forced Bush to start withdrawing immediately. I believe he probably would have dragged on as long as he possibly could, blaming every death in both Iraq and Afghanistan on the obstructionist Democrats. The Democrats could have, as you said, gone directly to the American people and pleaded their case, but as we both know the media is not a friendly place for Democrats at the present, and they have a hard enough time making their case heard.

My view is this, after Petraeus' report to Congress on July 15th, which will certainly not be rosey, there will be a significant enough number of Republicans ready to deal with the Democrats to take Bush entirely out of the equation, then we have a better chance at getting something substantive done towards withdrawal. I'm not naive enough to think this is going to happen immediately though.

As you say, the entire situation is unconscionable. Every death was needless and wrong. You can't possibly right a situation that is so wrong.

I'm just not seeing any evidence at this point, despite the contentions all over this board, that the Democrats as a whole are willingly aiding and abetting the Republicans in continuing this thing, and are willfully betraying the wishes of the American public, especially fellow Democrats.

[welshTerrier2]

95. aiding and abetting

well, that's an elephant of a different color ... i haven't raised it here but I believe everything about Iraq has been all about O-I-L ...

when you use a phrase like "aiding and abetting", we wander a bit beyond the narrower discussion about timetables. if Iraq is, in truth, all about O-I-L, I cannot begin to tell you how troubled I am that the Democratic Party has not called for a provision in every funding bill that demands all oil revenues remain with the Iraqi people and that no non-Iraqi corporation or government can profit from Iraqi oil.

are the Democrats complicit in Big Oil's imperialism in Iraq? they sure have been quiet about it ... are they aiding and abetting bush and his oily friends? i sure wish i had more evidence to say otherwise ...

[Virginia Dare]

100. The aiding and abetting came with the IWR...

as I said before, I was so pissed at the Democratic party after that vote, I could barely speak for days. I still don't have a good answer as to why they allowed that to go through. I was a big Gephardt supporter until that time. I thought, and I still think that he totally sold us out. If the Democrats had stood up then for what was right then instead of trying to protect their collective political asses, maybe things could have been different. That was the time to go before the American people and expose the lie.

But, as it is, we're there, our troops are stuck in the middle, and there isn't going to be any easy way out, not politically. At any rate, I think they did the correct thing this time, if not the right thing. By the end of summer, their leverage will be greater and they can do more than just spin their wheels, Bush has to be removed from the equation, one way or another.

[welshTerrier2]

115. Gephardt - read 'em and weep

source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/29/1515/

do you think Gore might choose him as a running mate now? he would balance the ticket out nicely. one against global warming and one for it ... pretty much covers the waterfront, eh?

[Virginia Dare]

136. Interesting...

and one pro labor and one not so much...very interesting, at any rate a pretty powerful duo, I'll keep that under my hat for now.

[Kolesar]

55. A board like DU is going to "select for" people who like to state things in extreme terms

Posters here have hyped the affair of last week's vote to an extreme level. I have also seen such writing from the likes of Glenn Greenwald, Bill Maher, and a few others who supposedly have this thing figured out and speak with authority (cough, cough).

Consider that there are probably about 60 million Democratic voters. Of them, maybe a million use the internet a lot. Lets say a quarter of a million correspond on message boards. The Democratic Underground has always existed in a state of high vigilance and scathing criticism (consider the "Top 10 Conservative Idiots' list, for example). It is only natural that those with the strongest opinions on the left wing are going to be heavily represented here. Hence, those who feel so strongly and have a strong desire to state it are going seem to be in a majority here.

[Breeze54]

71. 77% of the country wants the US out of Iraq!

And that makes members here a 'small' majority slice of the country? :shrug:

Try reading a newspaper, for a change or even a poll on the subject!

[onenote]

74. And that's why Kucinich is nowhere in the polls?

Most people want us out of Iraq. Most do not support defunding (although a poll that I hadn't previously seen cited uptrhead suggests a much closer division on that point than suggested by other polls).

[Breeze54]

82. Have you ever heard of the MSM?

Just wondering.... you do know who controls all the sound bites in this country, don't you?

[Kolesar]

75. Wrong-O. Wrong data point

People want out but there is not enough support for making the Pentagon pack up and leave post haste.

[Breeze54]

83. Baloney!

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

Of ALL ADULTS - Disapprove 72%

"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal
of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?"

Should 63%

[Kolesar]

91. A "timetable...2008" is not the same as defunding the war in a matter of months

Your posts could use some politeness:

Try reading a newspaper, for a change or even a poll on the subject!

[Kolesar]

78. Check and balance--Democrats make a valuable contribution to the Iraq debate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=284082

Check and balance--Democrats make a valuable contribution to the Iraq debate
The Akron Beacon Journal

Check and balance
Democrats make a valuable contribution to the Iraq debate

Democrats in Congress must have known the endgame. President Bush would stick with his pledge to veto any spending bill for the Iraq mission that included a timetable for troop withdrawal, and Democrats would lack the numbers on Capitol Hill to force a White House reversal. Thus, the Democratic leadership folded its hand this week, a vote likely today on a $120 billion spending bill that will go quickly to the president for his signature.

...ought to click the link to read the two paragraphs about Pelosi and Reid I deleted for copyright reasons...

Truth be told, there is a timetable at work. Virtually all the players, from Congress to the Pentagon, have in mind the end of September, the completion of the fiscal year and, more, a logical time to measure the president's ``surge,'' the bid to curb the violence in Baghdad, so Iraqi pols can govern, more or less. Then, there is 2008, Republicans seeking to avoid the burden of a failed mission in an election year.

In that way, many Democrats know how much Republicans would like to tag them with ``losing'' Iraq. That charge (weak as it is) may resonate when funds for the troops are delayed.

Better to recognize the limits of your influence. Democrats can take credit for accelerating the White House search for the next step in Iraq. If the early reporting from the Washington Post and others is accurate, the president has started to see the merit of ideas advanced by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and many Democrats, the United States reducing its military profile, signaling to Iraqis, in a significant way, the future of your country belongs to you.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/editorial/17272901.htm

[DrDan]

80. I don't understand your reference to an "immediate withdrawal"

a timetable for withdrawal need not be immediate . . .

[onenote]

85. Not sure if the question is directed to me, but my answer is as follows

On the issue of setting a timetable, I don't see how the Democrats, who voted nearly unanimously for such a result, can be accused of betrayal. They simply didn't have the repub votes necessary to override chimpy's veto. That left the following alternatives: pass a funding bill; pass the timetable bill over and over; do nothing. Alternatives 2 and 3, for all practical purposes, produce the same result -- funding runs out and, at least in theory, we begin immediate withdrawal of troops (if that isn't what defunding would do, its reasonable to ask why people are upset that funding continued).

[DrDan]

98. what is very confusing to me is that the Dems announced

well ahead of the bill, that they would continue to fund this war. Once that came out, why would junior make any attempt to compromise? He knew he had the Dems exactly where he wanted them.

There are certainly more alternatives than you mention.

For example, why not some meaningful benchmarks? Why allow junior the freedom to simply ignore them should he wish to?

How about some meaningful spending oversight. The drunken sailor spending approach needs some discipline.

Fund the war over a shorter period - as they did. However, a hundred billion plus for four months seems outrageous. The equates to nearly a billion a day!!!!!

Why are the Dems in such a weak position that junior need not agree to even the most minimal compromise.

[DrDan]

117. it is like you go out to buy a car and you tell the salesman

"ok - I want this car and I will pay you $30,000 for it. Now how much do you want for this car?"

I mean - is that any way to negotiate and seek a compromise?

[Virginia Dare]

141. It depends, is the salesman a psychotic doofus?...n/t

[DrDan]

143. good point

I guess I just assumed normal doofus . . . a tad maladjusted, but still pretty normal.

Guess I should not make assumptions like that.

[Nite Owl]

90. My congresswoman campaigned on

timelines:

Gillibrand, Sweeney's Democratic opponent. issued a press release Monday reiterating her position the United States should a deadline of six, nine or 12 months to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.

http://20trueblue.blogspot.com/2006/08/rudy-and-sweeney-wearing-rose-colored.html


She has been against the war in Iraq from its ill-conceived beginning and offers a sensible course that recognizes the failure of President Bush's mission and envisions a negotiated political solution that would allow a deadline to be imposed for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=531827&category=OPINION&BCCode=&newsdate=11/5/2006

She also promised that she would vote against the privitization of Iraqi oil. The bill passed last week encourages that in the benchmarks.

Do I feel betrayed? Very much so. The bill that was passed, the one that was vetoed was the compromise, thought it too had as one of the benchmarks to privitize the oil. The dems did not in any way vote to 'defund' the troops. Not only is that a GOP talking point this vote and the subsequent veto showed that * was defunding the troops by refusing to sign. They lost their will to fight. They lost, the troops lost. This is not what we voted for.

What people are missing with these timelines is when do they begin? For quite a while now it has been 6 months to a year. It's time we see that this is really quite phoney unless we set a clock to start this it will always be a year from whenever. It's like the dog at a race trying to catch that rabbit, the target keeps getting moved. So in September is it going to be September '08? The games have to end.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

99. i feel betrayed as an american..

democratic party has no chance of getting my vote in '08.

Ron Paul is the ONLY antiwar candidate.. political parties are irrelevant now

[Virginia Dare]

101. Kucinich is and always has been anti-war...n/t

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

102. Ron Paul is anti war n/t

[Virginia Dare]

103. So is Kucinich..and he's a Democrat...n/t

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

105. dont like his position re: 2nd amendment

deal breaker.. otherwise he's great

[Virginia Dare]

107. You said Ron Paul was the ONLY anti-war candidate..

that is an incorrect statement. I think you meant the only antiwar progun candidate.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

108. yeah yeah yeah... should of added "for me"

[onenote]

109. Kucinich's position on gun control is a deal breaker for you

but ROn Paul's position on most every other issue isn't?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3275486

[Virginia Dare]

110. The Democrats have lost this OP's vote...

something tells me they never really had it, don't go there...

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

111. nice assumption

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

112. none of that will matter if this war expands

and yes.. 2nd amendment is key

[Virginia Dare]

142. Right...

remember when Clinton was going to take everybody's guns away?..:eyes:

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

146. no, i dont remember that

please tell

[Justitia]

125. Seriously - there isn't a single Dem running who looks better to you than Ron Paul?

A republican? Seriously?

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

131. nope

Ron Paul is hated by dems AND reps.. he must be saying something they don't want us peasants to hear

[Justitia]

133. So, why are you here? I mean, you're voting Republican, don't like any Dems, so what gives?

BTW, I'm a Texan, so I'm pretty familiar w/my fellow Texan, Ron Paul - he's a nut.

Are you very well acquainted with his other "ideas" apart from his dislike of this war?

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

135. nope, just flipped a coin one day and decided to vote for a republican

:toast:

Ben Franklin once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.



on edit:
republicans seem to fear Ron Paul.. thats enough reason to toss a vote his way in my opinion. i really don't think it matters though; the system is broken

[Virginia Dare]

138. Nope, the right wing fundie nuts love him..

so you're in good company I guess.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

145. whatever.. i'm comfortable w/ my opinions enough to not have

to insult others to make myself feel better.

right wing fundie nut.. lol; never been called that b4

have a nice day

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

144. whoops..

[ecstatic]

114. Amusing, but true!

You are so right. The sad truth is, we all **ASSUMED** that the elected Democrats would give BushCo hell because we **ASSUMED** that they were as angry about the war and related crimes as we were.

Anyhow... the feeling of betrayal has left me now. I just feel jaded and even more cynical. I'm still a registered Dem for now, but in my heart I am independent and withdrawn.

[Jed Dilligan]

120. I don't really feel betrayed.

More disgusted.

Is that okay to feel? Disgust?

I'm sure looking at a lot of candidates' position papers would strengthen, not diminish, my disgust.

[onenote]

122. I'm not judging people's feelings. Just trying to understand them.

Feeling disappointed, or even disgusted makes more sense to me than claiming to have been "betrayed."

[truedelphi]

124. Look in late April (or was it March?) no one less than

Reid was standing there saying that any bill that was going to the President regarding funding had to have a time table or deadlines.

There was plenty of film on this - I think that Jion Stewart showed it, and it was here for a while also.

We were told BY THE DEMS in COngress that this is what we should ask for and expect.

But <sigh> we were also tole that all our votes would be counted (Kerry in election cycle of 2004)

It is always the same - the party of the concession.

Even when the Repukes lost to Bill CLinton, thery were right there on Hillary's butt for Travel Gate just a few weeks later.

They aren't as picky about whether their hard hitting stirkes stick or not - they know sooner or later they will stick.

So when will the Dems learn something about it? If not now, with a war that 72% oppose, with An attorney General that has perjured himself and betrayed his office, etc etc it will <sigh> I guess be never.

[JoePhilly]

127. We are the backbone, and we have not been strong enough ...

If we want OUR party to be strong, then we need to be the backbone ... we need to be so vocal, that the Dems know that we support them.

The 2006 election helped. But rarely does one election make a movement.

WE need to be actively supporting candidates that really support our views. Those are usually Democrats. They are rarely Replubicans.

The more vocal and active WE are, the stronger our democratic represetentatives can be.

The recent vote is not what any of us wanted. The alternatives are worse.

And don't forget that the Republicans are great at getting their people to vote in blocks. And they are great at DIVIDING the Dems into warring factions.

We have to stop fighting each other, and fight the GOP.

[Kolesar]

128. Welcome to our forum, JoePhilly!

:hi:

[Virginia Dare]

139. Excellent post JoePhilly, welcome to DU...

I hope you stick around, you are a voice of reason...:hi:

[Solon]

134. Not betrayal, disgust, I believe the Democrats are not interested in ending the war before 2008...

Why end a war now, when it would be the perfect issue to use to win the White House, if a thousand more troops die in the meantime, well, it takes a few broken eggs to make an omelet.

[Virginia Dare]

140. I'm not going to argue with you on that point..

for I think this is a much more reasonable argument than they're actually in cahoots with Bush, have no spine, or are greedy. It's the same reason the Repubs will never outlaw abortion.

It stands to reason that the more fucked up Iraq gets, the worse the Republicans look.

[blueworld]

148. I'm frankly surprised that you're surprised

Most of the Dems I know did not expect the troops to start coming home after the oath of office. We can point to a plethora of comments that indicated that there would be a battle, which IMHO did not occur. Pelosi basically gave * the blank check they were adamant he wouldn't get. Betrayal.

In court, a specific quote or piece of testimony is grounds for impeaching the character of a witness. This isn't court. There was a clear indication that the Dems would fight *'s Iraq policy. Only a handful have done so consistently. Show me where they hedged their bets & said, "we'll accomplish this only if we win a veto-proof majority".

Part of my anger is that the Dems really don't NEED to fight the GOP so hard because they know the voters have no other choice. There is no viable third party candidate & the country won't allow the GOP back in the saddle. And the entire Congress knows it. Too bad for us, not too bad for Lieberman.