Dems will support the "Surge" for six more months.

[Disturbed]

The $ will be forked over as Busholini demands with no strings attached.

[Toots]

1. Dems

:rofl:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[RiverStone]

6. Then why are you here?

The fucking losers are the folks that sold America this corporate war; and yet that is dust in the wind compared to losing one's life or limb on the battlefield for a misguided and ill-conceived war.

It is VERY frustrating that some DEMS on The Hill are spineless and seem unwilling to do the business of the people (save the likes of Kucinich and Feingold); but alcibiades_mystery, if you've reached the place where ya wanna call all DEMS fucking losers - it's time to exit DU.

Some here still want to be part of the solution, not the problem. Broad brushing all us DEMS with an insult does not a damn bit of good.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[villager]

3. "He said this time he *really* means it -- he's gonna stop drinking, and hitting me!"

n/t

[Brigid]

5. "Hit me again, Ike!"

And this time, put some stank on it!"

Dear Lord, now the Bush regime has got me quoting Jim Carrey! :banghead:

[Disturbed]

8. It is "vital to US interests. The Oil Flow. Iran etc.

The Dems have found a way now to keep the US Occupation
going.That is what they wanted all along. They voiced the opposite just to garner votes for '06. Dems will still pretend to be in favor of US Draw Down from Iraq to garner a majority in the Senate & the Pres. for '09 all the while keeping the US Occupation active. There is no way that Repugs or Dems are going to allow Iraq's oil to be controlled by "Terrorists" or anyone else. The US Govt. will control that oil flow & the US Occupation shall continue for decades in one form or another. Americans are being gamed by both Repugs & Dems.

The Repugs are imploding. With a few more scandals, esp. of the sexual nature, the Repugs will be viewed as perverts. The Dems are gambling on the notion that most Americans will favor Dems because the Repugs are losers & pervs. The US Occupation may draw down a bit but in no way will there be all out draw down. There is way too much to lose for America in the ME to pack up and allow Iran to be top dog in the ME.

[mmonk]

37. Yes there's no other way

we are going to let Iraqis themselves have their own oil in any form as a national company. We are there for controlling it for ourselves.

[Nite Owl]

4. Yep

and then another and another. It's their war now too.

[atreides1]

10. Yes, It is There War!

And every time that they provide more funding it will be linked to the Democratic controlled Congress, until eventually the Republican candidates for office will be able to point at the Dems, and convince people that it is the Democrats who continue to support endless war in the Middle East by constantly providing funding for it.

[spanone]

7. then they will be attacked for not ending the war....

[LittleClarkie]

9. Which lottery numbers should I play tomorrow

Oh great swami.

[Disturbed]

15. Is it now a requirement to be in the Democratic Party to post

on DU? Hmmmmmmmmm....

[LittleClarkie]

18. Isn't that a non-sequitor?

You were predicting the future. So I reckoned as long as you were plugged into the future, you could also net me a buck or two. No? I'd share, I promise.

Seriously, just point out that you're only speculating, in a rather defeatist manner, I might add.

What that has to do with being a member of the Dem Party, I dunno.

[jillan]

11. And how do you know this?

Biden said yesterday that the Dems are going to demand a plan for withdrawal.

Did you have a link to support that comment?

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. How many times do you have to be suckered?

How many?

[Joe for Clark]

39. We haven't lost quite yet .

I am not very happy with the leadership ability of our people - but I do not give up hope either.

They have only really been there a few months - I think they are yet to find their feet.

But rest assured - at least the house is up for a vote again next year. I trust they will find their feet very soon.

Joe

[riverdeep]

45. The problem is they've been on defense since the beggining

With all the incompetence dufus-in-chief wrought over these years, if you're still on the defensive and letting HIM make you look bad and define the agenda, maybe politics isn't your thing.

I don't let bullies push me around in real life, and I don't expect my representatives to be pushed around either, if they want to stay my representatives.

[Joe for Clark]

46. No more defensive - we go on offensive.

In the end I am convinced this is about the very survival of all the things all of our ancestors ever fought for. This is our fight now.

I am so with you. I understand we may lose - maybe - but the only way to find that out is to push back first.

Then we will see.

Joe

[Karenina]

16. Tomorrow, tomorrow and...

tomorrow...

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,

To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Gahahahaha...Exactly

[Nite Owl]

19. Biden:

This morning on Meet The Press, Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden walks in lockstep with right-wing talking points on Iraq funding. When asked by host Tim Russert if he would vote to cut off funding for Iraq if President Bush refuses to accept a withdrawal date, Biden moves directly to the “cutting off funding means you don’t support the troops” mentality pulled straight from the pages of the RNC playbook. Instead of speaking the truth, that it means appropriating funds to begin a safe and smart withdrawal from the country, not abandoning out troops, Biden instead says he won’t vote to cut off funding and chooses to chastise Democrats who support it.

It’s infuriating to say the least to see Biden falling for the White House framing– not one single Democrat in Congress wants to leave our soldiers stranded in the middle of the desert with no food, water, ammo or protection–and cutting off Bush’s funding would not do that–and Senator Biden should know better


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/09/meet-the-press-senator-joe-biden-will-not-vote-to-cut-funding-for-iraq-occupation/

[Javaman]

13. "thank you sir, may I have another!" nt

[Disturbed]

20. Am I now a Defeato-crat?

If the Dems attach any conditions to the next Bill regarding funding the US Occupation of Iraq will
Busholini sign it without adding a signing statement or will he outright veto it? If he lays down the veto will Congress be able to over ride it? I am not a psychic but do I need to hire a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows?

[LittleClarkie]

25. More like an Eeyore-ocrat, really

Buck up, buckaroo.

[Javaman]

26. Sorry, I should have been clear...

I was referring to the senate and house dems not you.

Actually I completely agree with you.

I'm counting the minutes until the dems pass the 50 bil more. once that's done, I'm done.

[Truth2Tell]

43. Truth-o-crat.

And becoming an endangered species.

[EVDebs]

21. They just said on MSNBC w/drawal starts summer 2008 seems like a secret deal was cut

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Gahahahahahah

You really can't be that stupid, can you?

[EVDebs]

28. Not with "Permanent Bases" and an unlimited taxpayer funding here at home

Snark. This can't go on forever.

Just like Vietnam, once the price of gas goes up the support for the war will disappear instantaneously. Read David Butler's The Fall of Saigon. The DoD/Pentagon guys couldn't get to work due to gas lines and support for war funding disappeared; the Saigon regime was on its own, despite warhawks like Amb. Graham A. Martin, whose adopted son (Glenn Dill Mann) was KIA in Nov '65 while Martin was amb to Thailand (and later to Italy, and finally So Vietnam).

Stupid no. Pragmatic, yes.

[ReadTomPaine]

32. Pragmatism only applies when a situation is rational and the players have a semblance of balance

This is not a balanced or rational situation. The chaos of the war's execution and the misjudgment behind its motivation have dwarfed the problems of Vietnam from the first day of deployment.

Public support for the war is irrelevant. To an extent, even GOP party losses in '08 are irrelevant. The cost of war isn't a liability - it's an income source. For many of the players, it's the entire reason we are there at all.

[EVDebs]

34. If it carries on it will destroy the Repubican party. Maybe some Dems are playing that game

too but it also will end up with how many more dead ? The army broken ? Cannonfodder. For what ? They can't even coherently describe the mission. With a recession looming and a falling dollar, if the Saudis don't 'turn on the spigot' soon, the price of oil will go up ANYWAY.

The party responding to real concerns from constituents will win out in the long run.

[ReadTomPaine]

36. The point of Iraq wasn't to strengthen the GOP

The point of Iraq was to enrich a set of powerful interests via a localized geopolitical instability. Secondary, domestic goals have been a concentration of power to the executive branch and further erosion of civil rights under the guise of permanently heightened security measures and the striking down of checks and balances safeguards.

At this point, we're pretty close to "Mission Accomplished"

[EVDebs]

41. BushCos only hope short term is to raise OPEC production levels to make up for Iraq's low numbers

google up 'opec to raise production levels' and you'll see three different stories saying OPEC will, won't, and will maintain steady production levels, at its Sept 11th meeting

Iran's only sanctions can come from that and a further UN recommendation for economic sanctions, that lead to gasoline riots in Iran itself.

Gas at under $4 a gallon sqeaks by the Republicans just barely into the next election.

Where I live everybody is aware that the needed infrastructure/'revenue-sharing' by feds for needed projects can't take place without a withdrawal/redeployment from Iraq.

Wasteful spending has a very poor 'velocity' of money in the economy. Especially if you're pissing it away outside the US.

And now we read that young voters are abandoning the GOP, whodathunkit ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3510189

[ReadTomPaine]

42. The pool of winners is a small one, but the fortunes have been vast and are already won

Short term gain means just that, the vast majority of the profits to be made from Iraq have already been taken and secured. The long term gains have been in the courts and domestic law. Those will outlast the outcome of many election cycles, no matter which party prevails. There are plenty of ways to game a destabilized US economy for further gain from the private sector.

Why worry about the the health of the GOP when the party has served its purpose for a generation and moved Democrats so far to the right that many moderate republicans feel at home?

[cali]

22. Not my Senators. Not my rep.

They've all said they will NOT support the surge. Will NOT vote for the fifty billion, and one of them has called for defunding the war, and will vote against spending measures.

[leftchick]

23. Now that Patraeus has admitted our occupation of 130,000 will continue

into infinity, the Democrats have to say NO FUNDING! PERIOD!

but I am not hopeful. :(

[EVDebs]

35. The funding deadline comes up by Oct. 1st. That is if we're not at war with Iran by then too. eom

[backscatter712]

27. Explain to me why we support these assclowns again?

Oh yeah.

I support the people and principles of the Democratic Party, not the quislings in Congress who claim to represent us.

Skinner, are you sure we can't change this site to the Progressive Underground?

[EVDebs]

29. Stop the insanity. The D's need to say this loud and clear. nt

[Evoman]

30. Okay....is it just me.....

or should the democrats stop the war BEFORE they get elected.

If they did this:

1) They wouldn't be blamed in the future for "pulling out" since it was done on a Repub term.

2) They would cause elation among the people who want an end to the war, who are a clear majority.

3) Look less spineless - which people (I know it's crazy) LIKE in a leader.

What is wrong with the dems? Do they WANT to lose? They neither have common sense NOR deep political strategy. How can they continously get it wrong?

[rucky]

31. 4) We have no business being there.

and staying makes everybody look bad.

[Evoman]

44. True dat.

Double true. I would have put that, but it was self evident (thats the number 1 reason for me).

[Imagevision]

33. Looks like Hillary or Obama will get their wish, to end the Iraq war if either are elected president

[Imagevision]

38. And even then it's still iffy....

[Disturbed]

40. Sen Clinton, as Pres would not pull out all the US Troops &

the 140 Mercs would remain. There is no way that any US Pres. would not leave at least 60K US Troops in Iraq to defend the Oil fields and the Embassy.