Anti-War Democrat Bashers: Please answer the following

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

You say you want more opposition to Iraq - tell me how Democrats go about doing the following:

1) Obtaining 60 votes in the Senate to override a filibuster, AND
2) Obtaining 66 votes in the Senate to override a veto, AND
3) Obtaining 290 votes in the House to override a veto.
-or-
4) Overcoming public opinion that states that only about 18-40% of the American people support completely de-funding the war.
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/schneider.iraq.p...

You all seem so content to call Democrats spineless and such, and yet I've not seen any realistic political plan from the anti-war Democrat bashers as to how they'd go about getting their will done. Since you seem to think it's so easy, please, tell me exactly how this would go about happening.

[wyldwolf]

1. they wish real hard, sprinkle some magic pixie dust to make "progressive" Dems win in Red districts?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. That certainly SOUNDS like the plan.

And yet I'm an asshole for bringing up little inconvenient facts. Go figure.

[Clintonista2]

112. Nah, they have a new solution

Blame Hillary.

[redqueen]

2. is there a thread for anti-bush-enabling democrat bashers?

:eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Seems like there are plenty of them.

Or you could just answer my simple question. It's not like I've got a push poll or anything - these are real-world facts that we've got to deal with if we want the war to end before Bush leaves office.

[redqueen]

5. i'm not the anti-war bashing type though

i'm the anti-putting-bush's-bills-on-the-goddamn-floor bashing type

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Well, they've only sided with Bush 14% of the time.

Which is the lowest percentage in the 54 years that such stats have been tracked. http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

So, they're really NOT putting Bush's bills on the goddamn floor very often.

[redqueen]

8. nah, only when it covers his ass for breaking the law

not like that matters

:eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Well, if you're talking about FISA, I agree with you.

I don't know what the fuck went on with that bill.

[redqueen]

11. what's to know... they stabbed us in the fucking back

i'm done being a fucking cheerleader.

i'm for the lesser evil.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. That's a bit dramatic.

One bill that doesn't go our way - and I might add that most Democrats didn't even vote for the bill - and we got stabbed in the back? That's a bit much.

[redqueen]

17. yeah just one bill... not an important one or anything

you have your opinion, i have mine

peace

[Buzz Clik]

3. Raise a shitstorm in Conyers's office?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Conyers isn't the problem.

Raise a shitstorm in about 60 Republican offices - THAT will be a start to solving the problem.

[Buzz Clik]

27. You're damned straight Conyers isn't the problem! (I agree with you)

Perhaps if Cindy attacked an actual enemy next time she might garner more sympathy.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Sorry - I missed the reference.

Yeah, she's not playing with a full deck, that's for sure.

[sharp_stick]

6. If only it was so easy

Our only option AFAIC, and by our I mean the Democratic voters, is to win the White House in 08 and increase our leads in both the house and Senate.

The pukes had a really easy time of it since shrubby started squatting in the White House in 2001 because they had good control of all three branches of Government. Now it's kind of fun to watch because we can watch them squirm as their misdeeds are slowly being brought to light one by one but we can't really force anything until we have the White House back under Democratic control.

The other option would be to obtain filibuster proof majorities in the House and Senate. No matter how bad it looks for the Republicans however I don't see any filibuster proof majorities coming. I think we have a really good chance of increasing numbers in both houses by quite a number but our best hope for real change comes in winning the White House. I have my own favorite for the Democratic nominee but I'll vote for whoever wins it and damn it I will bust my ass to help them win it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. You're exactly right.

The problem with getting 15 Senate Republicans and 54 House Republicans on board is that so many of them are so deeply tied to the war and to Bush that it'd be political suicide for them to jump ship that drastically. It's just not going to happen, short of some huge smoking gun coming out, but that'd probably result in Bush being impeached anyway.

Further, even if we cut all funding for the war, Bush has made it clear we're staying there through his Presidency, and he already has the resources to do it, even if it were to be even more half-assed than it currently is.

[Visigoth1]

12. 70% are aginst the war and ....

the Democrats could be obstructionist so the war couldn't be
funded by blocking everything and shutting the government down

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. You didn't read the post at all, did you?

Please, go back to the original post, go to the articles I've cited, and re-post. 70% are NOT in favor of pulling funding for the war.

[Visigoth1]

23. so what, it has to end

[defendandprotect]

90. Senator Leahy is in favor of no new funding for the war . . . .

[On the Road]

18. To be Fair, 60 or 66 Votes in the Senate is Only Necessary

depending on the strategy being pursued. The Iraq War funding, for example, does not need to pass by a supermajority. As long as the legislation is stalled, Bush can't get the dollars he has demanded.

Bush has played chicken and gone for broke, counting on the charge of being "weak on defense" to keep Congress from holding up the funding bill they would prefer. Congressional leaders apparently agree with the premise, namely that holding the occupation budget hostage is political suicide.

I really don't know who is right on this one, but it's very disappointing that Congress has not been able to come up with a more effective strategy.

On initiating new legislation that Bush opposes -- I agree it's pretty much hopeless in most cases. It's these other things that are worrisome. I hope they draw the line on Iran. I am not holding my breath.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. But the people aren't in any way supportive of killing or stalling the funds.

Yeah, that'd be the easy way around a veto, but it'd get our asses booted out of Congress next November. And holding the occupation budget hostage IS political suicide - just ask Newt Gingrich how that worked out for him.

They can't come up with a more effective strategy because they're in a no-win situation. Without compromising with Congressional Republicans, nothing is going to get done.

Iran is another situation altogether - we're not IN Iran already, and therefore it's a MUCH, MUCH different situation. It wouldn't be about "supporting the troops" or any other bullshit like that. It's a totally other ballgame, and I WOULD wholeheartedly hold Dems' feet to the fire on that one.

[Jim__]

19. They don't need 60 votes to defeat bush's new funding request.

It takes 51 votes to pass the request. if the request doesn't pass, no new funding. If bush vetoes the new funding bill, no new funding. With 51 votes, the Dems can defeat bush's new request for an additional $50 billion.

I'm betting they give him his $50 billion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. But again, in the latest polls only 18% support doing that.

There's no way we can go that route. We'd need a timetable-esque compromise that Republicans will support. Otherwise, there's nothing Democrats can do.

[Jim__]

22. So, we elect Democrats so that they can govern by poll?

And after the fall PR campaign, if the majority of Americans support bombing Iran, then we should just go along?

No thanks. There are some things that you just can't compromise on.

As to what they can do, they can defeat bush's request for additional funding.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. That's a bit of a stretch.

We're not talking a narrow majority here - we're talking only 18% support. That's NOT the kind of thing you can ignore, nor would I call it "governing by poll". As elected representatives, it's your job to represent the will of the people. So when a whopping 82% don't support a specific action, you're being grossly negligent if you go ahead and do it anyway, aren't you?

[Jim__]

28. No. I believe that representatives are elected based on their judgement.

If you believe the war is wrong, then you are obligated to vote against it. As to the 82% number, I'm not sure where that comes from. Who took the poll, how informed were the people answering the poll? If a representative believes the war is wrong, then I believe he should make his case to the people as to what he believes. And, if he can't convince the people, then he is still obligated to vote for what he believes is right.

If we want issues decided by popular majority, we have the technology to move to the type of government that Ross Perot suggested - government by national town hall.

Most people do not have the time to become expert is the isseus facing the government. That's why we should have people who spend their time becoming experts in current issues, those experts are our government representatives. Personally, I will vote for a person of integrity over a poll-follower. I want my representative to agree with me on most issues; but I don't want him voting my way because the latest poll tells him to.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. How can you have it both ways?

You want a politican to agree with you, and yet you also want them to use their judgment. Let's get this straight then - when your opinion lies in the minority, you want the politician to use their judgment, but when you are part of the majority opinion, you want the politician to agree with you?

I'm honestly not trying to put words into your mouth - I know that's not exactly what you're saying - but I am trying to highlight that it is a paradox that all elected officials have to deal with. Few people say they want their representatives to poll-watch, but when the rubber hits the road, if their rep isn't voting in line with what they want, they won't be re-elected.

It's little mistake that Congressional "mavericks" tend to be elected from incredibly safe districts or states. They can afford to always "use their judgment", because they're going to get re-elected regardless. This group includes Kucinich, McCain, Hagel, and Conyers. Most Congressmen aren't so lucky.

[Jim__]

68. I'm not trying to have it both ways.

I vote for someone with whom I generally agree on the issues. I expect them to vote according to their belief- i.e I expect that they will sometimes vote against my wishes. I do think they should, in general, let us know why they are voting they way they are.

[cali]

62. I don't thin you can extrapolate like that.

Just because only 18/% (and I've certainly seen higher figures) support cutting off funding, doesn't mean that far more than that don't support not funding the 50 billion supplemental. And btw, all of my reps are voting against it.

[2rth2pwr]

26. Exactly, why can't they just do what's right.

This idea that they should vote or act based on the latest aol or msnbc internet poll is goofy.

[Bonobo]

25. You don't know as much as you think you do.

All this talk about FILLIBUSTER, but how many times have the democrats actually FORCED the GOP to make good on their THREAT of fillibuster? Just once that I can remember. That was the Harry Reid all-night party that the MSM claimed was the Dems keeping everyone up all night when in fact it was just the Dems forcing the Pukes to actually fulfill their THREAT of fillibuster.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. What's your point?

And how does your post indicate I know less than I think I do?

[Bonobo]

104. Point is, if Pukes threaten to Fillibuster, we should force them to, and...

keep bringing up the same bill over and over and over.

We could do that. We don't. Why not?

How bout them apples?

[GeorgeGist]

29. NO funds.

NO war. NO filibuster. NO veto.

eom

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. And no public support. (nt)

[Vilis Veritas]

33. It is not that Democrats are spineless...

It is that a vast majority of the american public are Boob-Tubians who can't think for themselves, let alone come up with some sort of cohesive plan for reversing the brain-washing that permeates our society.

Peace.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. You're absolutely right.

But it's not just "boob-tubians". It's the fact that if you want to, you never have to hear the other side of the story. You can go to DU, get your news only from Keith Olbermann, read the New York Times (not that I think it's THAT liberal, but still), and never have to truly deal with an opinion outside of your own. Conversely, you can go to Free Republic, watch Fox News, read the Washington Times, and never hear a liberal point of view even once.

What that leads to is the idea that everyone thinks as you do and that ending the war should be a snap because, hey, who in their right mind disagrees? No one bothers to suggest the reality - that it's not nearly that simple and that there ARE a lot of people remaining that are in opposition.

[Vilis Veritas]

42. That is part of the madness...

Part of the kool-aid culture. If anyone thinks the kool-aid is party specific, they are sadly delusional. Most people would rather drink the kool-aid than think critically.

Kool-aid comes in many flavors...the portal of choice for drinking...the monitor. Whether the information monitor you watch is TV, Inet...it is all the same. People self edit their news information and make it what they want...the mind's eye sees only what it wants to see.

Peace.

edited spelling...

[leaninglib]

34. You make good points.

Winning the House and Senate was the first step. The next one will be winning the presidency.

Then, the heavy lifting begins, as it will be complicated to end the war in a way that is opposite of the manner in which it was begun--responsibly.

[Armstead]

35. Don't concede defeat without even trying

You are correct about the hurdles of the lack of a clear majority to taking any real action to end the war.

However, that does not mean the Democrats should not even try. If they come up with a plan to end the war responsibly, and propose it and initiate legislative action, the GOP MAY be able to kill it. But even if they do, it is at least actual movement and effort by the Democrats. Perceptions mean a lot in politics.

And it would expose the GOP further to the public by blocking efforts to get out of this quagmire.

Constently conceding defeat without even trying is not a winning strategy.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. They DID try.

Do you not remember that they passed a bill with timetables back already, only to have it vetoed?

[Armstead]

38. If at first you don't succeed.....

We have to be relentless.

The public is basically sick and tired of the stalemate that this war has become.

If the Democrats keep pounding away, it at least generates a dynamic of opposition.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. The problem is one of time.

Iraq isn't the only thing on the agenda. Do you realize that even as it stands now the Senate won't have the time to debate the Labor, HHS, Education spending bill until November at the earliest? It should have already been voted upon. There's little time for a TON of other things that need Congressional attention, (education slant because that's the area I work in) such as No Child Left Behind or college student loan reform. We can't just stalemate the entire country over one issue.

[Telly Savalas]

97. Then they shouldn't have wasted their time drawing up the blank check bill.

Just keep sending the White House the bill with the timetables. A majority of Americans support such a withdrawal.

If Bush keeps vetoing it, then it's him, not Congress, who is defunding the war.

[niceypoo]

41. Stop the funding, it's that simple

Give Bush and the republicans a, "sign it or forget it," war funding bill. If they kill it in congress or bush vetoes it then tell them, "sorry, that was your last chance," and don't allow it to come up again. Its that simple.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. And what do we do with the public, which doesn't support that route?

[penguin7]

46. The public is very badly informed

Most thinking ending funding will leave the soldiers stranded without supplies or something like that.

The Dems should inform the public.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. But Bush has said, repeatedly, that we're staying through his presidency.

How does the public reconcile those two statements? Honestly, they'd have to side with Bush - after all, he CAN keep them there, with or without the funding.

[TwilightGardener]

54. I agree--never underestimate this administration's willingness

to actually defund where it hurts the most (the troops) for political advantage. After all, I believe they conducted this war in a deliberately half-assed way in order to keep our troops there for the long term, which of course led to many more thousands of troop deaths AFTER Mission Accomplished. The troops are just pawns for them, and if the Dems defund, Chimpy will make sure the troops will HURT--and the public will demonize Dems. Our Dems in Congress probably know this.

[penguin7]

55. He cannot keep the troops there without funding

This is an example of bad information that is so prevalent.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. Yes he can.

It would come from other Department of Defense funding. And yes, it would lead to some horrific cutbacks to the Department of Defense, but he could absolutely do it.

[penguin7]

63. That is not what is says in the Constitution

Congress has the power "to raise and support armies..."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

65. It also says the President is Commander in Chief. (nt)

[Hippo_Tron]

98. Since when has Bush cared about the constitution?

[H2O Man]

49. True.

First, it is inaccurate to say the public is opposed to congress exercising the control of the purse-strings, as mandated by the Constitution.

Second, one of the primary functions of congress is to inform the public on issues.

Third, if one is seeking a prime example of the type of thinking that keeps democrats from exercising their strength, I would nominate the OP.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

52. Since when has Congress EVER been responsible for informing the public?

Please cite me ANY source that backs that up. Anything from the Constitution, Federalist or Anti-Federalist Papers... ANYTHING. It has always, ALWAYS been the media's responsibility to inform the people, and short of that, it is the responsibility of any good citizen to keep themselves informed.

Furthermore, you say the polls I've cited are inaccurate - prove it.

[H2O Man]

66. Sure thing, Sport.

Read the introduction of the Senate Watergate Report. I'll even keep it simple for you: look at pages 40-42.

Read the United States v Rumely,345 US 41, 43 (1953).

Read Woodrow Wilson's "Congressional Government."

Then, if you want to discuss your errors in thinking and perception, we can go forward.

[H2O Man]

70. Note to DUers

who may wonder if the Water Man can back up his claim:

{1} "(There is a) power of the Congress to inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in the agencies of the Government. That was the only kind of activity described by Woodrow Wilson in Congressional Government when he wrote: 'The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.' Id., at 303. From the earliest times in its history, the Congress has assiduously performed an 'informing function' of this nature."
-- US Supreme Court ruling in Watkins v United States, 354 US 178, 200 (1957)

{2} Also see United States v Rumely, 345 US 41, 43 (1953) in which the Supreme Court describes the informing function of Congress as "indespensable," and quotes Wilson's saying that it "is meant to be the eyes and the voice,.... and unless Congress (inform the public) the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct."

I think a wonderful example of that embarrassing, crippling ignorance is found when someone mocks the idea that Congress has the duty to inform the public.

[jpgray]

73. Where have you been the past seven years?

Most Americans can't even -name- their congressperson, let alone cite their views on important issues. How is Congress magically supposed to interpose itself between the media and the public? If it were as easy as you pretend, -nobody- in this country would be saying Saddam had something to do with 9/11, because Democratic congresspeople have been saying he didn't, loudly, for -years-. Are you being -purposefully- ignorant of how divorced Americans are from knowing what's going on at the legislative level by the media? They don't care, they don't want to care, and plenty of people are willing to help them not care. They just see the big stories on the nightly news, and those rarely include informative floor statements (which are all over the place) from Democratic congresspeople.

[H2O Man]

74. Please.

The only one who said it's "as easy as you pretend" is you.

[jpgray]

75. Then stop your bullshit. Kucinich has been saying the right things for years

The "right things" are easily marginalized because people don't care, and are encouraged not to care. They're trained to care about "supporting the troops," not larger purpose legislative missions that require explanation. Unless you have a few spare billions to invest in decades of think tanks, policy groups and lobbyists, you're not going to change the media overnight just by saying the right thing. For fuck's sake, how naive can you be?

[H2O Man]

76. Clown. n/t

[jpgray]

77. Your understanding of pith is as pathetic as your understanding of the public.

You're embarrassing yourself, like Will Pitt on a bender.

[H2O Man]

78. You made up

something and attributed it to me. I pointed out that it was something that came from you. It belongs to you, alone. Then you tell me to "knock off" the BS. Please.

The original discussion was about the congressional duty to inform. The person who wrote the OP said I was wrong, and demanded that I cite references. I did -- a book by a US president, two US Supreme Court decisions, and the Senate Watergate Committee Report. Are you interested in discussing that? Perhaps it isn't as easy you you pretend.

[jpgray]

82. But none of your cites are particularly applicable to the real world

You argued the public would support a hold on any spending bill that funds the war--based on what?

While agreeing that the public isn't informed, you cite -Congress- as a vehicle to inform them. Here's where your naivete (purposed or otherwise) comes in. Without a wholesale overhaul of how Americans receive and process information, "Congress" is the worst possible vehicle to inform the public. As I said above, most Americans would have trouble identifying even two out of their three Congressional representatives.

Your little bibliography is worthless because your sources are either obsolete or arguments of basic Constitutional theory. They aren't relevant to any concept of modern practical application, with today's media and with today's public. How any of this responds to the reply above "the public is not informed" is something you might concern yourself with.

[H2O Man]

84. Your first sentence

is yet another example of your need to make things up, and pretend that I said them. Get real.

[jpgray]

85. Yes, the public supports Congressional control of expenditures in general. So what?

When we get down to specifics, there are lots of times the public disapproves of the -way- Congress exercises that power. The public supports a president's right to veto, that doesn't meant they would support a veto they dislike. Why hide yourself in a pretension of generality? Aren't we talking about funding the Iraq war specifically? Or are you giving a basic civics lesson?

[H2O Man]

86. You are silly. n/t

[jpgray]

87. At least I don't flood a discussion with misguided citations and glib generalities

Next you'll tell us that government is meant to have checks and balances.

[harun]

57. Since when does congress care about what the public thinks, that is why

we live in a Republic.

[penguin7]

43. How come Kucinich is the only one discussing ending funding?

If the Democrats would take up the cause, the public would follow.

[harun]

64. Because he is the only one (besides Richardson) who I believe

actually wants it ended.

The rest of them are more than happy to use the bad news coming from Iraq for political gain against the Repugs.

[Solon]

79. Exactly, the rest of them want to climb over the mound of bodies to get at the Presidency.

Its frankly disgusting.

[MadHound]

45. Well, first of all you use ALL of your congressional powers

Including holding up each and every single war funding bill in committee and force the troops home. Secondly, you don't getting your research using mealy mouthed Zogby polls whose quesions you are misstating. From the Zogby link: "Just 18% said cutting all funding for the war in Iraq to bring troops home would be the best showing of Congressional support. " That doesn't say that only eighteen percent of the people support defunding, just that they don't think it is the best way. However there are other polls that show that more people favor defunding the war than oppose it<http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/030107_Bush_Iraq_Iran_web.pdf> Given Fox's rep, I would actually more apt to trust this than Zogby.

Finally, do you really want to leave the lives of millions of people and the destruction of an entire country up to the will of the people, basing it all on various polls? You know, sometimes politicians have to do the right thing whether it is popular or not. Defunding the war is one of those times, and it is past time for the Dems to step up and do the right thing, defund the war, end the madness and bring the troops home now. Anything else is playing political games with peoples' lives.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

72. If Democrats would get the message through they would get support

once the Dems and their GOP mates would listen that public opinion was for totally bringing the troops home (like we did in Vietnam) they would be embarassed into actually doing something. That means a Dems/GOP bipartisan vote that would force the lunatic's hand into stopping the USA's involvement with Iraq and turn it over to the UN peacekeeping force. The lunatic knows exactly that he is losing his battle in Iraq. The Brits are pulling out. It just needs someone to tip him over the edge. The only way is to keep chipping away at it, that means, flooding Congress with bills, proposals and flood the media until the GOP succumb.

I expect hey are afraid all this will spoil their chances of being Repub-lite and war-like for the 2008 Presidential election.

[Milo_Bloom]

47. Oh for phuques sake...

Its actually VERY EASY, but the democrats don't have the balls for it.

#1) Announce that the blank check is over.

#2) Announce a PLAN that involves phased intelligent withdrawl.

#3) DON'T COMPROMISE

#4) If the GOP attempts to obstruct explain that THEY are defunding the war by refusing to sign on to this plan that the people want.

#5) DON'T BACK DOWN. Keep painting the GOP as the ones who are DEFUNDING by refusing to do what the people want.

Reality: The public OVERWHELMINGLY wants a plan to end the war. If the dems are offering one and the GOP is obstructing it, the dems win the standoff.

If the GOP refuses to cooperate with a reasonable plan, THEY are defunding the war, THEy are the ones with the blank check, no plan mentality. BUT YOU HAVE TO STICK TO IT AND NOT BACK DOWN!

Easy!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. Newt Gingrich tried that in 1995.

Result - he lost his job AND he lost the battle.

[H2O Man]

51. Baloney.

Newt tried to shut down the federal government. Democrats can defund the war without doing that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. Correction - Newt DID shut down the federal government.

And he did so because President Clinton refused to sign into law spending bills that he deemed inadequate. Tell me, how would this course of action be any different from what Newt did?

[Milo_Bloom]

60. As long as they don't make a simple mis-speak

It won't be any different, which is exactly what would be needed.

The public, as a whole, respected the Shut Down, until Newt's famous idiot statement that it wasn't about the fiscal issues, but because he was forced to sit at the back of Air Force One.

However, the willingness of the party to "stand up to Clinton" enough to shut down the government is what has given the modern GOP thugs respect from the public as people who stand up for what they believe in.

Dems, on the other hand, are seen as weak capitulators, because, for the last decade, that is exactly what they have been.

[onenote]

80. "The public as a whole respected the shut down" == can you back that up?

WHile Newt's remark about being upset that he had to sit in the back of AF One was stupid and made the GOP look even more ridiculous, I'd be curious to see evidence that until then the public was supportive of the shutdown.

Polls taken before the shutdown indicated that the public was opposed to the repub agenda by a 10 percent margin. And throughout the entire situation, CLinton's favorability ratings exceeded those of Newt by 20 plus points. Again, in AUgust 1995, before the shutdown Newt's favorability ratings were 31 percent positive and 47 negative. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1618&pg=2

From the outset, the public blamed the shutdown more on the repubs than on Clinton and the fact that it was resulting in workers being furloughed and was threatening to disrupt services cost the repubs more than Newt's foot in mouth disease imo.

[Milo_Bloom]

95. 10 Years of GOP rule in congress and...

the consistent perception that the GOP is "strong", which is why people flocked to them in "times of war".

[onenote]

99. huh?

The repubs lost 8 seats in the House after the shutdown, which doesn't sound like folks were flocking to them. They lost five more in 1998, 2 in 2000, before getting 8 back in 2002 by fearmongering 9/11. With help from re-districting, the repubs managed to pick off another 3 seats in 2004 (for a net loss of four seats in the post-shutdown elections). Finally, in 2006, in a "time of war", the Democrats picked up 31 seats and control of the House.

So I'm having trouble seeing any positive from the government shutdown. The repubs were losing ground until they used 9/11 as a political sledgehammer -- but any connecction between that and folks feelings about the shutdown are imaginary imo.

[Milo_Bloom]

109. You really don't get it, do you?

HOW were they able to use 9/11 as a political sledgehammer? Since it happened under their watch, wouldn't it stand to reason that it SHOULD have worked against them?

People see them as those who won't back down.. strong... willing to fight for their beliefs no matter what the odds.. any other bullshit term you want to come up with.

the democrats lack that image, in large part because they aren't willing to REALLY fight for things. They make a lot of noise and then back off, rather than take risks.

If the democrats had stood up to bush in Oct 2002, it is very likely the gop wouldn't have gained an additional majority in Congress and won the senate. The democrats showed weakness by GIVING IN and continue to do so over and over and over again.

The shutting down of the government was a long term gain for the GOP as it continued to seal their image as the people who will stand up for what they believe no matter the consequences. This is the reason why they are able to weild that sledgehammer.

The only way the democrats are ever going to be able to weild a sledgehammer is by standing strong on an issue.

[H2O Man]

67. No shit.

That's not a "correction."

[Milo_Bloom]

56. Actually he won on all counts.

He ended up "losing his job" for reasons entirely unrelated.

However, the "shutting down of the government" is one of the things that till this day makes people believe that the GOP is the party with the strong will.

Too bad the dems don't have the balls to stick to their convictions the way the GOP did in 1995.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

58. Tom DeLay doesn't even agree with you there.

He claims that the botched government shut down was the beginning of the end for his "Republican Revolution". When Tom DeLay doesn't even think Republicans won, I think it's pretty safe to say it was a bad idea.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. WRONG.

What Tom Delay ACTUALLY SAID was, "He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One...Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child..The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."

The mistake WASN'T the shutdown, the mistake was the idiotic statement.

[H2O Man]

71. Any time a DUer

says that your viewpoint is in error because Tom DeLay disagrees with you, you have to laugh.

[ecstatic]

69. Let us know what's going on, dammit

All I see is cheesy press briefings with Dems and Bush smiling side by side. If you're fighting to end the war, let us know it. Whether they have the votes or not, they should spend every opportunity they can in front of the cameras explaining to the American people that Bush and the repubs are what's keeping us in Iraq. Instead, all we get is silence. What are we supposed to think?!

[onewholaughsatfools]

81. you are joking correct

all one has to do is not fund this mess...........

[ComerPerro]

83. the answer is that they don't actually know, because they don't really care

[Kuni]

88. You want to do something that might work?

To get Republican support in Congress, Petraeus and his support of Bush’s failed Iraq policy must be stopped in its tracks.

Every Editor needs letters written to them also pointing out the following. Every web-site needs to saturate the Web with the following facts.

To do this, EVERY Democrat Senator who will be asking Petraeus questions next week should start off pointing out that he has lied in the past about Iraq.

Contact every Democrat Senator and tell them that if they do not immediately, even before Petraeus get’s to start his opening comments, start asking him about his previous statements that misled the public, and politicians, on Iraq; and why it’ll be any different this time.


Do you want to turn Petraeus’s BS around? It’s time to start pointing out the fact that Petraeus is a lying sack of excrement who has played this “Crap is getting better in Iraq” game before.

I think we should deluge the MSM, and start writing ‘letters to the Editor’ pointing out the fact that Petraeus has a history of lying and playing politics with his lies. Calling your local Congressperson and Senator and pointing out the following won’t hurt either.

Six weeks before the 2004 election, Petraeus wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in which he lied and said that there had been “tangible progress” in Iraq, and that “Momentum has gathered in recent months.”


Right now there are only 25 Google hits for: +Petraeus "Washington Post" +2004 +Iraq +“tangible progress” +“momentum has gathered in recent months”

Let’s spread the message and make 25,000 by next weekend and expose this lying sack of shit before he lies us into 3 more years of occupying Iraq. Below I'll post the comments posted at the DoD's site (no Copywrite as that they are Public.) that Petraeus made over the past few years, all of which were either outright lies or very misleading for those who want to help spread the BS Petraeus has shoveled for Bush in the past.


P.S. I don’t know if links to Commercial Sites are allowed here, but if you Google the above Google example; you’ll find a link to the original Washington Post Op-Ed.

[Kuni]

89. Here are some of Petraeus lies about Iraq from the past few years.

Let’s look at some of Petraeus earlier BS, where he gave us a ‘rosy picture’ implying we should stay the course. I guess all those Iraqi’s he trained turned out so well, that the surge wasn’t needed.

And I love his Jan. 2005 comment where he let slip that: “Iraqis must provide for their own security. The coalition cannot impose a peace on Iraq, nor can force make democracy flourish”


http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3158
September 14, 2003 . . .

. . . Schieffer: Let me ask you one other thing, and that is this intense criticism that seems to be boiling up on Capitol Hill. This story this morning is filled with it, and basically it comes down to that Don Rumsfeld, and I'll just put this straight to you, is stubborn, and that's the reason he won't admit that he made a mistake when he said we have plenty of troops there, and that that's one of the reasons you're having problems on the Hill and within the Pentagon. I just want to give you a chance to respond to that.

Rumsfeld: Sure, I'm glad to. How do you respond to whether or not you're stubborn. I guess you respond this way, we have General Abizaid who is in charge of the Central Command, General Sanchez, who is in charge of Iraq, and then a series of division commanders, good ones, General Petraeus, General Odierno, and they meet regularly, and they ask that question, do we need more U.S. troops, and they say they don't. They do not feel that we ought to bring in more additional troops, why?


Rumsfeld: Just let me respond. Now, should I be stubborn and say, you're wrong? What I do is I say, why do you or don't you need something, and I go and discuss it. And they come back consistently and say they do not need more additional troops, you need more force protection, you need more combat support people if you're going to have more troops. We're managing the skill mix of the troops, because they're not doing a lot of combat, they're doing a lot of presence and a lot of construction, and a lot of assistance, and a lot of forming city councils, 90 percent of the people in Iraq are now living in an area that's governed by a city council, or a village council.

Schieffer: So you do not feel that you made a mistake‑

Rumsfeld: If I felt I'd made a mistake I'd change it.

Schieffer: Misestimated, or underestimated.

Rumsfeld: My problem is the people who are saying we need more troops are not giving any good reasons. There's no substance to their arguments, they're just saying we don't have enough. Our military people say we do, and they then explain why they think they do, and why they want the effort on increasing the Iraqi capability. So I listen to the two sides of the argument. I would increase the number of troops in five minutes, if people would come to me and make a decent argument, but all I see is critics saying, you need more troops. Something has to be wrong. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26181
June 28, 2004 – Recent adjustments made to improve Iraqi security forces are working, a senior U.S. officer in Baghdad said June 27.

Ongoing changes "are gradually, but markedly improving the quality of Iraqi security forces," Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, chief of the Office of Security Transition in Iraq, reported during a Pentagon Channel interview. . .

. . . "But, there are also areas where we see considerable success," he pointed out. For example, he said, Iraqi security forces had months ago assumed a variety of important security tasks from coalition forces in the north and south of the country. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1643
January 05, 2005. . .

. . . GEN. METZ: No, no. The original plan for the Iraqi army was 27. As we began to grow -- a year ago, the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, which became the National Guard, that number has changed a number of times since I've been in command. We are focused right now on 45 battalions, but with an expansion program to about the 65-battalion level. That has a relationship to the amount of equipment we can ship in to get them to that level.

So I just don't have all the numbers memorized, but there is a 27-battalion army original plan; 45-battalion National Guard growing to 65 plan. The minister of interior has an ever-increasing and robust structure that he's putting together. The army has made some decisions inside of that original plan to go with intervention forces and change some of the training for the army battalions. He's brought on -- he's working on bringing on mechanized forces.

And so, again, we had a plan before sovereignty and it was a baseline to work from. But the sovereign government has made decisions and is changing things, and we're offering advice. But it's going to be a robust enough structure, I think, in 2005 to take on the insurgent fight here in Iraq, and it will be equipped and trained to do so.

Does that help?

Q Yes, sir, thank you. Just, the 65, is that by the end of this year, or what is --

GEN. METZ: I would say by the end of '05 for sure. I'm sure that we can get you that data. I just -- I apologize, I just don't have it all memorized --

Q Sure, no problem.

GEN. METZ: -- and that's because my good friend, Dave Petraeus, he's supposed to put me out of business. And every time I see him I hug him and say, "Dave, you've got to put me out of business. I'm the Multinational Corps fighting here. You're building the transition security capability -- get on with it." And he is. And we really are a team. We're good friends. But I look to him to memorize all those numbers. And when he gets them trained and they become tactical control, take on to the Multinational Corps, we employ them and they are good troops. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=24406
Jan. 10, 2005 – The U.S. Army general in charge of training Iraqi forces said here today that the job is tough, but it is a mission that must be accomplished before coalition forces can leave Iraq.

And, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, added, progress is being made. . .

. . . Iraqis must provide for their own security, Petraeus said. The coalition cannot impose a peace on Iraq, nor can force make democracy flourish. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31204
March 14, 2005 . . .

. . . Petraeus said the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections provided a boost to the security forces. Iraqis manned the two inner lines around more than 5,000 polling places nationwide. Insurgents launched more than 270 attacks on Jan. 30, but did not penetrate any polling place, he said.

Following the elections, the general continued, the Iraqi forces got a boost in morale for their fine showing, and the Iraqi people developed trust in the security apparatus. This respect has meant more recruits for the Iraqi army and police, and a greater role in the defense of their own country.

Iraq has 96 operational combat battalions today, Petraeus said. The battalions are out in the cities and rural areas of the country. They are going on independent operations and they are getting results, the general said. Iraqi forces are "shouldering the burden" in 12 of Iraq's 18 provinces -- the three Kurdish provinces in the north and the nine provinces in the south.

"It's making a big difference. You see it in Fallujah, you see it in Baghdad," he said. "You also see it in places like Tikrit and Mosul." . . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16991
Aug. 2, 2005 – The chief of the coalition command charged with training Iraqi security forces said "enormous progress" has been made in the effort. . .

. . . Petraeus said that while most of the Iraqi units rely heavily on coalition forces for support and guidance, "there are still some three dozen of them that are assessed to be in the lead." By this he means that the Iraqi units are leading the fight against the insurgents with minimal or no help from coalition forces. . .

. . . Given continued progress and acceptable conditions, Petraeus said, the United States may be able to reduce troop presence in the country next year, noting this depends on political progress as well as progress in the security capabilities of Iraqi forces. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18152
Oct. 5, 2005 – The Iraqi security forces have made enormous progress over the past 16 months, the U.S. Army general who oversaw their training for more than a year said during a Pentagon news conference today. . .

. . . Iraqi security force readiness has continued to grow with each passing week, the general told reporters, and will grow even more between now and the Oct. 15 national referendum on a draft constitution. "There are now over 197,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, and that should be close to 200,000 by the time of the referendum," he said.

More than 115 Iraqi police and army combat battalions are in the counterinsurgency fight, he said. About 80 of the battalions are fighting alongside U.S. forces, which the general said equates to Level 3 readiness in the four-tier readiness rating system. "Over 36 (battalions) are assessed as being 'in the lead,'" he said. In the lead is the term associated with Level 2 readiness, and means the troops are capable of leading joint patrols, as opposed to merely participating.

Level 1 units are labeled as being "fully independent." There is one battalion in this category, Petraeus said.

The general said it is a mistake to fixate on the Level 1 unit. He said Americans should to expand their understanding of the readiness levels and what each unit brings to the fight. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18157
Bush Pleased With Progress of Iraqi Security Forces

Oct. 5, 2005 – President Bush said today he's pleased with the progress Iraqis are making in developing a military capable of handling the security challenges of the future.

Bush spoke to the press following a meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq. Rumsfeld and the generals briefed the president on the status of Iraqi forces and coalition operations in Iraq.

[defendandprotect]

91. Impeachment is one answer --- Let's move on that -- !!!

[onenote]

100. right, because if we don't have the votes to force a withdrawal, we have the votes to impeach

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

102. We don't need "votes" to investigate for impeachment . . . . and WHY wouldn't America

favor impeachment of Cheney/Bush????

Especially as evidence was developed --

Do you think that when they began impeachment investigation of Nixon that they had the votes -- ????

[onenote]

103. a bit of history

The House and Senate can and should be investigating -- but not for the express purpose of pursuing impeachment.

An impeachment inquiry in the House starts with a vote of the full House to direct and authorize the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry/investigation. In the Nixon impeachment, that vote was held in February 1974 and passed by a 410-4 margin. (The Senate Watergate Committee hearings that preceded this vote were not "impeachment" proceedings -- they were a special investigation and even they were authorized by a 77-0 vote a year before the formal impeachment inquiry was authorized).

So,yes, after what came out in the watergate investigation, including the revelation of the white house taping system, and following the saturday night massacre in October 1973, they had the votes to start an impeachment inquiry in the nixon case. If investigations lead to similar revelations and misconduct, I have no doubt that there would be sufficient votes to start an impeachment inquiry in the House against chimpy/cheney. But its clear that there are not sufficient votes to start the process today.

[defendandprotect]

110. "A rose is a rose" -- call it what you wish -- but INVESTIGATE TO IMPEACH ---

[defendandprotect]

92. When Republicans were the minority, they "blocked" Dems . . . .

When Democrats were the minority, they didn't "block" Repugs --
Now that Democrats are the majority, they're supposedly being "blocked" again by Repugs --

AND . . .. Democrats just refunded the war -- !!! ????
Why was that necessary -- ???

It wasn't, at all --

[defendandprotect]

93. It would also be helpful if we didn't have DLC within Dems with such high "pro-war" sentiments -- !!

Let's get rid of the DLC -- and send pro-war Democrats to the Repugs --

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

108. The Republicans had the Presidency.

We do not. World of difference.

[defendandprotect]

111. You're misinformed ---

When the Democrats had the presidency and a majority in Congress --
George Mitchell was Majority leader ---from 1989 to 1995 --

which would have been during Bush, Sr. term of 4 years and
Bill Clinton's first four years ---

I watched as George Mitchell turned the Congress over to Bob Dole -- the minority leader.

I'm simply trying to make clear to you the level of betrayal that has already happened.
Believe it or not --

Yes, having the presidency AND majorities in Congress makes a huge difference --
IF YOU'RE A REPUG

If you're a Democrat, it supposedly doesn't work.
Keep an eye on what's happening and see for yourself.

Btw, we no longer have C-span 2/Senate coverage here via our cable TV servers --
We have to go to the internet if we want to watch it --
Hope you're faring better --

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

114. You're miscounting.

Mitchell would have only been Majority leader for 2 years under Clinton, not 4. Clinton took office in 1993 and in 1995, Republicans took over Congress. Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean by he handed over the Senate to Bob Dole. Those first two years of Clinton's Presidency were some of his most productive, getting the Brady bill, NAFTA (regardless of how we view it now), Earned Income Tax Credit, and the budget reconciliation, which lead to our biggest surplus in history, during those first two years in office.

[defendandprotect]

115. By "handed over" . . .. I mean exactly that . . . . that control of Congress moved to Bob Dole ---

Mitchell was Majority Leader from 1989 to 1995 . . . .

Mitchell was Majority Leader for six years --

While it's nice to have the presidency, I'm trying to bring to your attention that the Republicans near became the majority party when Mitchell was Majority leader. And, yes that was only TWO years under Clinton.

Clinton struggled immediately to get anything thru Congress -- especially the budget reconciliation.
Quite shocking; if we wanted to return corporate/elite taxes to, let's say, even 1980's levels, we'd probably have to call out the militia--!!

NAFTA, of course, was part of the Republican agenda -- ???

And, Clinton, himself, took on much of the Republican agenda --

But coming back to the main issue --
George Mitchell, as Majority Leader, turned the Congress over to Bob Dole.
I watched this happen --

[IndianaGreen]

94. Don't bring a war funding bill to a vote in the House!

If Pelosi was half the Speaker that Newt Gingrich or Sam Rayburn were, the war funding bill would never see the light of day.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

107. I partially agree with this.

Reid and Pelosi should be doing a much better job playing "good cop, bad cop". Reid may not have ANY real leverage in the Senate to get something done, but Pelosi does. I mean, Republicans all hate Pelosi anyway, so why not have her be the extremist, so as to raise the bar for compromise? I'm not sure about not bringing the bill to the floor, but a much tougher bill should be brought up in the House, that I agree with.

[Telly Savalas]

96. Here's a few suggestions:

1. Put provisions in the bill to make sure the motherfucking money is actually being spent on things that help the troops. Is that really that fucking hard? Even most of the assholes who support the war could get behind that.

2. Spend more time raising the issue of where the money is coming from. Whenever somebody makes a proposal to expand health care coverage, the right-wing talking point is "but how are we going to pay for it?" Put a fucking proposal to blow $100 billion in Iraq, and nobody seems to really give a shit anymore. Why the fuck is that? And why isn't the Democratic Party raising more of a stink about it? Want your fucking war to go on forever, assholes? Then raise taxes to pay for the fucking thing.

3. Realize that they do ultimately have the power of the purse. Defunding may not fly, but they do have leverage. Start early and continuously hammer the White House with reasonable and moderate proposals for a phased redeployment. A majority of Americans do support that. If Congress remains patient, consistent and firm, it will win the PR war on this, and it will be the president that will be forced to capitulate. If they flounder around like they did before their vacation, then they wind up looking just as bad as the White House. Hence their shitty approval numbers.

And I don't want to hear any whining about the so-called MSM having the deck stacked against the Democrats. I just saw some guy go on a TV station owned by GE and deliver a 7 minute rant calling the president a liar.

[defendandprotect]

101. lOVE your suggestions . . . an odd about GE behavior -- KO and this rant ?????

GE is more right wing than the John Birch Society --

and as corrupt/criminal as Bushco -- with a much earlier start --

So, why the liberalism re KO -- do they think that the days of warprofiteering have to end for a while, or what??????

[LWolf]

105. If the issue were slavery instead of war,

I wonder how many bush-enabling democrats would be demanding:

"You say you want more opposition to slavery - tell me how Democrats go about doing the following:

1) Obtaining 60 votes in the Senate to override a filibuster, AND
2) Obtaining 66 votes in the Senate to override a veto, AND
3) Obtaining 290 votes in the House to override a veto.
-or-
4) Overcoming public opinion that states that only a few of the American people support completely abolishing slavery.

You all seem so content to call Democrats spineless and such, and yet I've not seen any realistic political plan from the anti-slavery Democrat bashers as to how they'd go about getting their will done. Since you seem to think it's so easy, please, tell me exactly how this would go about happening."

Before polls, before votes, it's about standing up for democratic principles, it's about having and holding government to high standards of conduct, it's about holding, defending, and working to advance positions on issues that benefit the planet and the masses on the planet, not the power holders and/or the elite few.

Really, put any issue of substance into that statement, and the meaning and intent are the same:

Principles don't count and are not worth standing for or fighting for.

[polichick]

106. Dems have two tools, neither of which they've used...

~They can refuse to let bills come to the floor for a vote ~ something Reps have no qualms about doing; they kept the paper trail bill out, which would have changed the outcome of the 2004 election.

~They can impeach.


Sure, their job would be easier (safer) if they had a super majority, but they don't and they need to find the courage to use what they have before Bush starts yet another war.

A shirt for Nancy Pelosi:

<>

[defendandprotect]

116. The Republican are being treated like royalty vs the restrictions the GOP put on Dems . .

when the Repugs were the majority party -- !!!!

[Auntie Bush]

113. That's what I keep wondering.

Why the hell do we bash ourselves because we can't do the impossible?
Sometimes I wonder about people around here. What makes them tick?