If Congress does not have the will to end the war; then what strings should they attach to the $$$?

[RiverStone]

I hold out little optimism that Congress will draw a line in the sand this time which would make this next 50 billion contingent on a withdrawal time-line. So many of us in so many ways over the months and years have demanded an end to this madness, only to be repeatedly disappointed (save the for the likes of Kucinich and Feingold).

At the very least, there is talk that Dems on The Hill may attach certain "strings" to the funding. We did that in May - that is probably what will happen with the vote later this month. Any concession short of beginning to bring our troops home is another failure; though in anticipation of that, a question...

What strings do you recommend we ask for in exchange for another hefty check for Shrub's immoral war?

[MadHound]

1. No strings, no votes

Just hold up the supplemental war funding bill in committee and defund the war, bringing the troops home. Sorry, but the time for compromise and meaningless gestures is long past. People are dying daily by the hundreds and thousands while the Dems fuck around. It is time to end the madness.

Sorry, no compromise on this issue, not on my part.

[RiverStone]

5. Too bad your not voting

On the Hill anyway MadHound.

I agree in principal, NO compromise!!! Of course, you and I and many others here have been preaching/shouting that to deaf ears. We have been demanding an end to the war from the same Dems that promised to do so in November of 06.

The question I ask myself (and I'd be interested in your read on this) is when do I as a voter no longer "compromise" and refuse to support the party I've voted for my entire voting life...until they make REAL steps to end the war?

When do I no longer compromise my vote for the Democratic party? Because I would be hard pressed to vote for them today --- due to their non-action on Iraq.

As an aside, I'd still vote for some progressive candidate; though until our Dem leaders really think they will lose droves of supporters; they will keep wimping out.

[MadHound]

9. That is the million dollar question, one that I haven't fully answered myself

I've stuck with the Dems through thick and thin, ever since the McGovern campaign. Sadly, I've seen the Dems move further and further away from my position, becoming ever more right leaning with time. After Clinton, whom I disagreed with on many issues(NAFTA, welfare "reform", etc.) I seriously considered voting Nader in '00. I refrained though, knowing that it was going to take a large push to keep Bush out of office. I did the same in '04. I think my real tipping point was earlier this year, when the Dems refused to defund and end the war. I draw the line when party politics means supporting more death destruction. I really have to see who is going to get the Democratic nod for next year, but if it Hillary or some other corporate candidate, I'm probably going to go Green. I can only continue to vote against a person, or vote for a lesser evil for so long. About the only candidate that I'm enthusiastic about voting for is Kucinich, and I realize that his chances are slim.

I think that more and more people are reaching the same breaking point, that the ongoing death and destruction has outraged them so much that they can't continue to support anybody who isn't taking action to stop the war. Thus, I think that, especially if Hillary gets the nod, we're going to see a situation much like 1968, where you have millions of anti-war liberals either voting third party or staying home. Harsh medicine I know, but perhaps it will wake up the party leaders and force them to pay attention to the voters. God knows, nothing else has.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. May I respectfully suggest that the question is wrong?

If we starting thinking about the "price" we wish our spineless leaders to extract from the White Hores, we have alreadly lost all hope. Any price is too high. Just like impeachment being the primary topic that our congress needs to discuss NOW, getting out of Iraq NOW is just as important. Whoremongering, dealing our kids' lives and Iraqis' future for SCHIP or a fix of that infamous FISA POS, is a price way too high to pay.

But I agree, I see no signs of life in the Democratic leadership. I wonder just how we can send them a message that they will comprehend.

[RiverStone]

6. The only leverage we have left is our vote

YES antifaschits, ANY price is too high. But they keep bartering with the idiot from Texas and until we tell them in mass that they will LOSE OUR VOTES if they keep this up, they will keep wheeling and dealing.

QUESTION: Are you willing to no longer support the Democratic Party until they walk their talk of November of 2006 to end the damn war?

I'm considering it...and I believe it is the ONLY way we can force their hand. Sad but true.

Power to the people right?

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. (Insert snort of derision here)

Strings? On a war appropriations bill? What planet have you been living on?

[RiverStone]

4. The same planet as our spineless leaders...

See in bold below:

CNN
9/3/07

The same report will also be cited by anti-war Democrats who say military success has little relevance given the failure of Iraqi politicians to stop sectarian fighting and create a viable government.

Those clashing views could come to the House and Senate floors in September in debates over the Pentagon's budget or a separate White House request for $147 billion in emergency spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Democrats, who control both chambers, say votes will come with strings attached. Just what strings could depend on positions Bush takes following the Petraeus report.

link:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/04/congress.returns.ap/index.html

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. They say lots of things

I'll believe it when I see it. And strings that are unenforceable or simply unenforced do NOT as strings.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. The only "string(s)" they should attach to any additional funding

Is that whatever funding is provided be used for withdrawal/redeployment of our troops ONLY. It is clear that the Iraqi government (and I don't judge them too harshly because we created a lot of the mess that they're struggling with right now and will continue to deal with for years perhaps decades) is not meeting the so-called "benchmarks" that the BUSH (MIS-)ADMINISTRATION ITSELF set. I don't care whether they think that the "benchmarks" were too high or too low now. Obviously, the Bush (mis-)administration seemed to think that they were appropriate at that time that they were implemented. Otherwise, they would, of course, have to admit (but won't) that they just don't know how to write good benchmarks. Either way, enough is enough. There is realistically nothing more we can do over there other than helping keep a lid on the violence without any meaningful political "reconciliation" (which was supposed to be the whole point of sending several thousand more troops over there in the first place) that is obviously NOT occurring under the current Iraqi government/mis-administration. We've "ensured" that Iraq has NO WMD WHATSOEVER (although the UN was telling us that without us further destroying the already crumbling Iraq), "liberated" Iraq (and a lot of civilians and US soldiers from their lives along with it), deposed/imprisoned/executed Saddam & his nutcase sons (arguably one of the only "good" things to come out of this mess), and helped enable the formation of a supposedly free and "democratic" Iraqi government. So, by my estimation, we've achieved everything that Bush et. al claimed we are over there for, so.......MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!! :freak: BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!!!! Oh, and just for the record, I NEVER supported the war, never believed any of the various rationales for invading/occupying Iraq. I'm just trying to point out what our troops have done over the past 4+ years and why their continued deployment in Iraq is no longer necessary, especially at these current levels.

[valerief]

10. No 50 billion. Period. No more allowance for these war clowns. nt

[Buns_of_Fire]

12. Agreed. Not one damned cent. BUSH'S WAR is hereby DEFUNDED.

Trouble is, people are going to have to be convinced that such a move ISN'T going to strand our troops there without even a Greyhound bus ticket home.

Give them all free rides home on AF1. That'd be a damned better use of it than it's been put to in the last five years.

[valerief]

13. There's tons of money for them to come home. The crooks just have to steal less. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

11. End corporate welfare, raise the estate tax, end abstinence only sex ed

I've been suggesting that the Democrats should've done this months ago. Fund the war in two week increments and force Bush to swallow something he wouldn't otherwise sign every two weeks.

[spanone]

14. no money, no strings, no war....stop the funding NOW