Realistically, there is only one way to end the war.

[cali]

Vote in a dem president and increase dem majorities in the House and Senate.

I wish it weren't so, but that is the cold hard truth.

Not sending him a funding bill won't work. He'll take the money from someplace, and yes it's there.

Sending him a funding bill that he'll veto won't work. He'll do the same thing.

Impeachment won't stop him. He'll just keep it going throughout the procedure.

I'm not saying don't do those things. I think they absolutely should, but even in the unlikely event that they did, it won't stop him.

Angry as you may be at the dem leadership or dems a whole, the only way to end the war, is to elect more of them.

[Pawel K]

1. If you don't provide funding he'll run out of money eventually

its better than not doing shit.

[cali]

2. As I said I think they should do it

but he will find a way to move DoD monies to Iraq.

[liberaldemocrat7]

16. I respectfully disagree.

Call General Electric, the war contractor and tell the person in public relations until their CEO Mr. Immelt gets Bush to end the war and gets Bush and Cheney to resign, you will not buy their products.

When thousands of people call them today at 203 373 2211 you will scare the hell out of the public relations department.

[Parkerlane]

20. yes, good idea.........

Our troops will not be coming home until Congress cuts funding to this war, period. Do you think the next batch of elected Democrats will cut funding to this war? I don't think so. Democrats have bought lock, stock and barrel into Bush's "War On Terror."

[jefferson_dem]

58. *Concerned*, are you?

Please elaborate on what exactly keeps you here.

[Pawel K]

22. So what, let them

Let Bush do what he's going to do. But we need to get the ball rolling on withdraw now, not later.

[Nederland]

4. Two problems with that

One, "eventually" means after his term is over. Two, the move will be spun by the RW to mean that Democrats want to deprive our soldiers of the equipment they need to survive. Is it true? No. Will a sizeable number of people believe it? Yes. And that misguided belief could hurt us in 2008...

[Pawel K]

21. You are too scared of the neocons and their spin machine

grow a spine already. They have been psychologically beating us in to submission for years, it's time that ends. How do you think we got out of Vietnam, by being afraid of talking points?

And your suggestion that americans would buy in to this is proved false by latest polls, the majority of americans want us out of there as soon as possible. So hang in there and don't let the right wing bully you in to thinking you should be scared of them, americans are on our side as they showed us in 2006.

[Nederland]

45. Vietnam and the results

How do you think we got out of Vietnam, by being afraid of talking points?

We got out of Vietnam by cutting off funding for the war. As a result, the right wing labelled us as being soft on security, a label that persists in the minds of voters even today, more than thirty years later.

[Parkerlane]

11. Cali is wrong.........

Cali is simply dead wrong when Cali says cutting funding won't bring the troops home. Cali is the victim of pro-war propaganda, because American history does not support Cali's claim that cutting funding won't bring the troops home - how in the hell does Cali think our troops have been brought home before? Please carefully review: Project Filibuster http://www.projectfilibuster.com

[sufrommich]

33. There is this little thing called a pronoun...

[Pawel K]

44. LOL

Thanks, that made me laugh. :rofl:

[uppityperson]

48. sounds like someone not wanting to assume a poster is male or female.

using name instead of "him" or "her".

[LeftCoast]

60. DUzzy!

:yourock:

[Stanchetalarooni]

3. The most realistic scenario that I envision ain't pretty.

It is the same one that cleared the US of the Sioux, Cheyenne, et al.
The same solution that ended the Indian wars here in the U.S.
Genocide.
Over time.
The U.S. oversees the factional infighting until the only Iraqis left are all but powerless to control their own destiny over their own country.

[Squatch]

5. Congress is required, by law, to appropriate money for the military

each and every year. Though those appropriations might be delayed for months, the functions of the military (including elements engaged in combat), as essential to national security, cannot be affected by "not sending a funding bill" (more precisely known as an Appropriations Act).

[Maggie_May]

6. I know what you are saying but

I will not a vote another senator or congress person that votes to have more troops die. Thats what it comes down too the blood is on your hands. The Democrats need to stand up this is insane and it needs to stop.

[Parkerlane]

12. Cali is simply dead wrong when Cali says cutting funding won't bring the troops home.

Cali is simply dead wrong when Cali says cutting funding won't bring the troops home. Cali is the victim of pro-war propaganda, because American history does not support Cali's claim that cutting funding won't bring the troops home - how in the hell does Cali think our troops have been brought home before? Please carefully review: Project Filibuster http://www.projectfilibuster.com

[Maggie_May]

34. your are right!

We need to demand to stop funding this war. If not for are sakes but the sake of our children and grandchildren. Stop funds and troops come home its that simple. I beginning to think the Dems what them to stay in there. I hope I am wrong.

[ShortnFiery]

54. If these Democratic Leaders, Presidential hopefuls or not, allow this horrific situation to continue

much longer (don't take a firm stand - or - MAKE * Veto any moneys), I'm going to be disgusted with the entire Democratic Party. Hell, I probably will vote Green or Independent. God knows that "the party" has used LIBERALS as a scapegoat at every damn opportunity. I'm disgusted with them insisting that I, a liberal, must ALWAYS compromise to elect their warmongering corporatist so called "moderates."

[earthside]

7. If that becomes the perception ...

... that Congressional Democrats will not put up much of a fight to end the occupation just so that they can win the 2008 elections ... then they are doomed.

Besides, it is just plain morally wrong to let this illegal occupation continue when they have a perfectly legitimate way to stop it.

The best strategy is to simply not send a full funding bill to Bush. They should only send an appropriation with sufficient money to conduct an orderly withdrawal. Then Dems have the high ground. If Bush then illegally moves money from one Pentagon budget to another to keep the occupation going, he will have to face the consequences of such an unethical and criminal and anti-American act.

[OneBlueSky]

8. that's assuming BushCheney doesn't declare martial law and cancel the elections . . .

they have, after all, issued all of the executive orders necessary -- AND have put out a plea for clergy to help them maintain order in the event of martial law . . .

if it looks like a duck . . .

[ananda]

9. To stop the insanity now, you have to impeach! Now!

nt

[Parkerlane]

10. Realistically? How about historically?

Realistically? How about historically? A review of the U.S. history of military withdrawals would be in order here. See, http://www.projectfilibuster.com

Since the inception of the War Powers Act, the ONLY WAY our troops came home was when Congress completely cut funding - each time against the sitting President's will.

In other words, Democrats could have already cut funding to this war via filibuster (when Bush was pimping his $100 billion war bill) but elected not to do so, claiming cutting funding to this war would be harmful to the troops. This is one of the most despicable lies ever told by Democrats and Republicans.

http://www.projectfilibuster.com

[cali]

13. And how long did it take to end the Vietnam war by

cutting funding? Realistically means exactly that- dealing with the reality. And the reality is that they aren't going to cut funding- however much I deplore that. And realistically also means recognizing that bush will not step back from Iraq no matter what.

[Parkerlane]

15. Do the world and America a favor and please review Project Filibuster

U don't need more Democrats to end this war - there's enuff already.

It only takes 40 Democratic Senators to end this war, by automatic filibuster.

When Bush sent his $100 billion war bill to the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid could have ended this war with a press conference, by announcing and invoking Senate Rule 22 - automatic filibuster. Any party who has the majority in the Senate can institute an automatic filibuster - no talking needed.
The filibuster is the most powerful tool in Congress. Despite the Republicans being a minority in the Senate, Republicans easily blocked the Democrats' "non-binding resolution" by simply manually filibustering that bill, because Republicans have at least 40 Senator in the Senate.

Do the world and America a favor and please review:
http://www.projectfilibuster.com

[Parkerlane]

18. You should be calling and contacting Democratic Senators

You should be calling and contacting Democratic Senators demanding they cut funding to this war, instead of just saying they won't cut funding to this war. Our troops will not be coming home until Congress cuts funding to this war, period. Do you think the next batch of elected Democrats will cut funding to this war? I don't think so. Democrats have bought lock, stock and barrel into Bush's "War On Terror."

[cali]

24. I have called my reps to thank them for promising to against any spending nt

[Parkerlane]

14. U don't need more Democrats to end this war - there's enuff already

U don't need more Democrats to end this war - there's enuff already.

It only takes 40 Democratic Senators to end this war, by automatic filibuster.

When Bush sent his $100 billion war bill to the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid could have ended this war with a press conference, by announcing and invoking Senate Rule 22 - automatic filibuster. Any party who has the majority in the Senate can institute an automatic filibuster - no talking needed.
The filibuster is the most powerful tool in Congress. Despite the Republicans being a minority in the Senate, Republicans easily blocked the Democrats' "non-binding resolution" by simply manually filibustering that bill, because Republicans have at least 40 Senator in the Senate.

Do the world and America a favor and please review:
http://www.projectfilibuster.com

[cali]

17. What part of "they won't do it" don't you understand?

I'm all for pressuring them to do it, but the odds against it are staggering.

[Parkerlane]

19. Yes, you're right.

Our troops will not be coming home until Congress cuts funding to this war, period. Do you think the next batch of elected Democrats will cut funding to this war? I don't think so. Democrats have bought lock, stock and barrel into Bush's "War On Terror."

[cali]

23. The website you llink to should

try and keep up with dems who have said they will not vote for future funding for the war even if they don't sign on with him. Both my Senators have said they won't period. Same with my rep.

[ludwigb]

25. NOT IN OUR NAME

It's as simple as that. I don't want my representatives to continue this war. I don't care if it's good politics that Bush is stuck with the war so (presumably) more people vote Dem in 2008. I want my representatives to represent me and stop wasting lives and taxpayer dollars.

[cali]

26. I didn't say it was about politics

I said it was about the most realistic scenario to end the war, and all your sloganeering won't change that.

As for my reps they represent me, and they will not vote for funding the war.

[H2O Man]

27. I would take it

a step farther, and say that at this time, the only hope for ending it is to elect a group of democrats who are seriously anti-war/pro-peace, and one of the most capable anti-war/pro-peace presidential candidates. There are democrats who are running for president and who are looking to be elected/re-elected who do not have what it takes to end the war.

There is a vast difference between "can't" and "won't."

[cali]

28. I wouldn't disagree with that n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

29. How dare you?

Citing reality? Come on. We don't need reality, do we? Really?

(The above was sarcasm, in case it wasn't evident)

[goodhue]

30. maybe we just need some different democrats

It is not about the numbers but rather about political will. The war could end before the presidential election if we had the different democrats--democrats with backbone. But since we are stuck for the moment with who we got, best to lobby them to get some backbone.

[cali]

32. Actually, it is in part about numbers

history demonstrates that.

[goodhue]

35. Confusing 'can't' and 'won't'

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3177

* * *

The problem with all these accounts is that Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq--it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41--the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War--if they choose to do so.

The Democratic leadership may believe--rightly or wrongly--that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different from being unable to affect policy. To insist, as many media outlets have, that the Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the nation--by confusing "can't" with "won't."

[cali]

38. If it's not happening, won't is the same as can't.

That's really not that complicted.

[goodhue]

40. Overcoming won't is possible.

Overcoming can't is not.

[ronnie624]

43. Thanks.

The Democratic leadership may believe--rightly or wrongly--that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different from being unable to affect policy. To insist, as many media outlets have, that the Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the nation--by confusing "can't" with "won't."

The political costs to the Democratic leadership that the article refers to, of course, is the capital which is absorbed from those entities that fund their campaigns and ply them with lobbying dollars, not that which is derived from the will of the people. The people can be manipulated with propaganda.

The changes that are needed will run much deeper than simply voting in more Democrats.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem voting for Democrats. But our system needs changes and safeguards that will prevent our 'representatives' from being so easily corrupted by corporate benefactors.

[lyonn]

31. You are right, but,

Our counry is being abused and we must just "take it". I'm too old for this stuff.

It seems the Dems could be more outspoken on these serious issues, like, I love Hillary stating that Petraeus' report was a "Willing suspension of disbelief". Course Biden is constantly dissing bush's plans.

[GeorgeGist]

36. Nonsense ...

Bush is not immortal nor is his Dick.

[cali]

37. gee, that made a lot of sense. Not.

[Selatius]

39. There's two ways to end the war. Filibuster Bush's war spending bill.

The second Bush comes back to ask for another 50 or 100 billion dollar spending package for the war in Iraq, levy a filibuster. It's shorter than waiting for 2009, when there will be a whole lot more body bags.

[cali]

41. That won't stop it.

He'll shift DoD money so that he can keep the war going.

[cali]

42. That won't stop it.

He'll shift DoD money so that he can keep the war going.

[Selatius]

49. Not sure that would be legal.

He would rip up the insides of the Pentagon infrastructure if he did that. DoD money isn't given in lump-sum allotments; there are earmarks for each program within the DoD. He'd be robbing Peter to pay Paul, cannibalizing the Pentagon itself. I doubt even Bush would be able to stymie the storm of internal dissent within military ranks if he started doing that.

[goodgd_yall]

51. Since when does President Slimeball care about legal? n/t

[uppityperson]

46. Vote in a democratic president who WILL end the war, along with congress majorities.

Simply voting in a dem pres and congress won't do it. They will have to be willing to end the Occupations.

[Flabbergasted]

47. I was actually debating this today and I think the only way to actually stop the

war is a general strike. Our top three candidates for president have not expressed the will to order a full withdrawl which is the only thing that will stop the war. In addition they have all expressed the line "All options are on the table concerning Iran." The only way we'd see an end to this war governmentally is if Israel decided it was not in their best interest.

[cali]

52. I'm sorry,

this business about Israel really controlling the U.S. gov't, is just ridiculous. Influence? Sure, and it's not the only country with influence either. Control? Nope.

[Flabbergasted]

53. The only reason why the US is discussing attacking Iran is to protect Israel.

That is one of the official reasons. Can you think of another legitamate reason why we'd want to attack Iran?

[cali]

55. I haven't seen any evidence that one of the official

reasons for attacking Iran is Israel. And I can think of a very big reason for the admin wanting to attack Iran: We want the oil in Iraq and we want to keep Iran from interfering with "our" interests. I slso posit that one of the main reasons for attacking Iraq was a delusional belief by bush/chener that they coul refashion the mideast into a compliant region, largely controlled by the U.S.

The israel thing is a red herring. And btw, bushcheney is much closer to oil interests than Israel.

[Flabbergasted]

56. .....

Bush Statement on Protecting Israel from Iran:

US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if necessary to defend Israel.

"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace," the US president said after a speech defending the war in Iraq.

"I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," said Bush, who was apparently referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060320195105.4089dcoq&show_article=1


Iran does have influence in Iraq but the influence is due to a natural extension of religious ties. The idea that Iran is causing the instability in Iraq is a huge fallacy similar to Saddam's purported WMDs. Iraq instability is caused mainly by their own political and religious differences and the presence of the US military which is far more of an issue for the Iraqi people.

In addition, the "Axis of Evil" had three members: Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Iran was already a target for the Bush Regime and it had nothing to do with protecting the Iraqi oil supply then or now but rather bringing rogue states into the fold of globalization and international banking organizations and corporations as well as eliminating the financier and creator of Hezbollah

[H2O Man]

59. Yet we have

some reason to suspect that the "official reasons" that the administration gave for invading Iraq were not altogether upfront and honest. Beware of "official reasons" to at least the extent that you consider other available evidence. In this instance, for example, there were people from the OVP's OSP, working with some at the Pentagon, who delivered military secrets about Iran to the intelligence program of AIPAC, which then brought it to Israeli intelligence. This is found in the court papers where Larry Franklin has made a plea, and where two AIPAC officials are fighting the charges against them (though not necessarily denying the actions they took). Does the case in and of itself "prove" one point of view about possible military conflict with Iran? No, but it might be as worthy of serious consideration as any "official reason" given by this administration.

[Flabbergasted]

50. kick

[Solar_Power]

57. We have enough votes -- but no balls

we need balls

[LeftCoast]

61. I agree with much of what you're saying, but I'd like Congress to do more

I'd like them to pass a bill with timelines for withdrawal. When * vetoes it they should then only fund the war on a month by month basis. We need to beat the Republicans to death with this over and over again as long as they keep this war going.

[cali]

62. As I said in the OP

I'm all for doint that. I'm for initiating impeachment. But none of those actions will stop bush. We have to strangle the repukes in the election.