The condemnations of Dems are big on emotion, short on reason

[Harper_is_Bush]

To an outside observer, it appears like the Democratic party is working with the cards they've been dealt. Sometimes reality dictates a slightly longer route to the wanted destination.

To label this as a "roll over" is a little simplistic.

What do those here who are angry (and switching party affilication) expect? Cut off funding, just like that?
Such a move would be suicide, would probably not end the war anyway, and would jeperdize political capital for a whole host of other important issues.

[bluestateguy]

1. The Democratic leadership rolled over. The rank and file will not.

MOst Democrats in Congress will vote against the Bush war bill. It was the leadership that capitulated.

[Rosemary2205]

2. Last I heard they are sticking min wage hikes in there.

If that's correct then that is a big win for America and gives both sides a chance to claim victory. If Bush were to veto because of the min wage hike and IF Dems can play the media game then it COULD really make the R's look like schmucks.

Now if the min wage thing isn't in the final -- one wonders why in the world the Dems postured if they weren't going to fight.

[mmonk]

3. What were they dealt in 06?

[Harper_is_Bush]

4. Save your platitudes and empty rhetoric

they certainly were not dealt a mandate to cut off funding for troops in the field.

I see a LOT of pressure being exerted by Democrats on Bush over Iraq. That's good. Do you recognize that at all, and have any gratitude whatsoever?
September is the time to push it. That's just the reality.

[mmonk]

10. Interesting insult.

Who's calling for cutting funding off to soldiers in the field? There's enough in the pipe for them. The war has been escalated since the election. Want to pretend that's the reason they were swept into office?

[mike_c]

11. cutting off funding is precisely how congress was meant to solve this problem....

Read your constitution. Congress is not in charge of troop movements or planning. That's the Pentagon's job. Congress's sole responsibilities are to 1) declare war, and 2) appropriate or not appropriate funds. It is perfectly acceptable for congress to simply refuse to author supplemental appropriation. The "troops in the field" will have to withdraw. That's the way it is supposed to work. The executive does not have constitutional authority to demand funds to continue an occupation indefinitely.

[Toots]

50. They were dealt a MANDATE for accountabiity

People want accountability. It ain't happening..2008 will go back to Republican Control because people will give up..Apparently it doesn't make any difference who controls Congress, they all have the same mindset. At least the Republicans are not afraid to use their Power..

[hellbound-liberal]

5. They were dealt a slim majority that can not override a veto

Like it or not, they can't force Bush to accept a spending bill that includes timelines. All they can do is defund the war and, with the current state of the media in this country, they will be accused of and perceived as not supporting the troops that are already there.

[mike_c]

7. they don't NEED to override a veto....

How many times does this need to be said? All they need to do is refuse to appropriate the supplemental. Period. End of war. No one even has to vote.

[OzarkDem]

8. And they haven't done that either

They are as they appear, weak and rudderless.

[mike_c]

12. exactly....

:puke:

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. They're only as strong as you make them

so, I guess they're screwed.


All the outrage over this, and I've yet to see ONE of the outraged to talk about the realities. If the funding until September is not provided, what happens? End of war? On what basis is that claim made?

It's all emptional outrage, no substance.

[mike_c]

18. on the basis of the constitution of the united states....

Yes, if Congress refuses to appropriate funds the war will HAVE to end. They're spending what? A billion a day? Appropriating or not appropriating funds is Congress's constitutional control over the executive's authority to wage war. This isn't made up shit. It's the truth.

[Harper_is_Bush]

32. It is 200 million a day. If the funding wasn't appropirated, how would it end?

Would the soldiers have to hitch a ride home?

How does that work, exactly? The money runs out, and the war can no longer be fought....and so...what happens?

Those specifics are not discussed by the outraged here.

[mike_c]

39. withdrawal of the troops can be covered by the regular annual...

...defense appropriation.

[Telly Savalas]

42. And a fair chunk of the Democratic caucus don't support timelines themselves.

How can the Democrats effectively engage the White House when a noticeable segment of them support the White House for all practical purposes?

Running at 6000 RPM's may overheat the engine, but you gotta put the foot on the gas a little bit if you want to go anywhere.

[LSK]

31. a slim majority in the Senate that is not filibuster proof???

:shrug:

[mike_c]

6. maybe it's better to try and lose than to be complicit in the name...

...of political expediency. The war against Iraq is criminal, not political. Congressional dems just joined the neocons in complicity.

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. What tripe.

I've never seen such a disappointing lack of loyalty and perspective as I've seen here over this funding bill.

Now Dems = Neocons? Get real.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

13. I agree Dems are not neocons

They don't have the spine to be neocon. neocons are good at doing what they say they are going to do, regardless how stupid it is.

Dems in Congress are spineless twits.

Sorry if you don't see it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

17. Don't apologize to me, I don't care if people choose outrage over reason.

It's your loss, not mine.

[mike_c]

16. lack of loyalty? where is congressional loyalty to their constitutional duties...

...these days? You want loyalty? Let them earn it!

As for your comment that those congressional duties are "tripe," please address the substance of the argument rather than simply taking cheap-- and ignorant- shots.

[Harper_is_Bush]

I said your comments are tripe. As for taking "cheap--and ignorant shots", you should not talk...

calling Dems the equivalent of neo-cons.

[mmonk]

54. So the constituents need to be loyal to the elected official,

not the other way around? I had this democracy thing all wrong. Thanks for clearing it all up.

[StefanX]

14. Wrong. If Bush vetoes the funding/timetable bill over and over, the funding will DRY UP

So we don't NEED the votes to override the veto.

The momentum is on OUR side in this case -- because this bill isn't just about a timetable, it's about funding.

Bush can veto it all we want, and all we have to do is keep sending it back to him. And WE WIN. For two reasons:

(1) The bill is a FUNDING bill. Bush vetoes the bill - Bush defunds the troops. No override required.

(2) The PEOPLE (70%) support a timetable.

So it's not pointless. We have Bush by the balls pursestrings on this one.

[bullimiami]

19. really you think so? would the republicans have acted so timidly given the same hand?

NO.

Unacceptable.

[Harper_is_Bush]

36. You are framing falsely....I don't see anyone acting "timidly".

But if you prefer how republicans act, then vote for them in '08 I guess.

[Seabiscuit]

47. Then, Sir, you are blind.

If issuing a "blank check" for the Iraq War obscenity until October isn't "timid", then "spinelessness" has no meaning whatsoever.

How dare you defend the indefensible???????????

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Yes, cut off funding.

It would end the war, which is what they were put in office for. They'll be put in office again if they do it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

23. oh, that's the only reason they were elected?

uh huh

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Fuck, yeah, that's the reason they were elected.

And that's the exact promise they made when they were elected, and their first day in session.

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. I don't remember them ever promising to stop funding the war. Link, please? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Do you remember anything about the 2006 election?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/04/BAG5ANCTQ27.DTL

[Harper_is_Bush]

30. How about a little honesty here?

Your reponse to my post was not straight. My guess is because my comment was correct: nobody voted to stop funding the war.

Understand that the goal is the goal, but the way of reaching it is not something you can pretend was pre-determined and laid out when it was not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Honesty is exactly what I'm getting at.

A vote for funding, is a vote for the war.

[Harper_is_Bush]

35. You said: "Do you remember anything about the 2006 election?"

The answer to your sarcastic question is yes, I do.

So instead of changing the subject, why don't you tell me what it was abotu the 2006 election that gave you the impression that a promise to remove funding was given?

A change of direction in Iraq was promised, but just because you think it needs to happen by way of removing funding don't assume your opinion in that regard represents what was promised....because that's just plain and simply dishonest.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

21. "those here who are angry (and switching party affilication)"

Who here is switching party affiliation?

[Harper_is_Bush]

22. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x942691

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. I haven't changed party affiliation.

But apparently some of the politicians have without telling anybody.

[Poll_Blind]

33. SNAP! n/t

PB

[converted_democrat]

53. Best post on the entire thread!! n/t

[ecstatic]

24. What move could be more suicidal than what they just pulled?

:shrug: It doesn't get any worse, IMO.

[brentspeak]

29. K & R

:kick:

[leftofthedial]

37. yeah. don't do anything. give the worst repuke in history

(and that's some mighty tough company) everything he wants

all so you can save your political capital for, um, er, oh yeah, those other issues.

Yeah, those other issues that you are also rolling over, er, uh, saving political capital by rolling over, uh, er, um, "compromising" on.


The Congressional Democrats are our enemies. Period.

[Harper_is_Bush]

38. Another false framing of the reality.

Who is giving Bush everything he wants?

And what would it mean to withold funding? None of you outraged-types have answered that yet.

What would occur if funding was not provided?

Anyone?

And please, something a little deeper than "the war would end".

[leftofthedial]

40. deeper? okay.

the war would end . . . now.

The point is that they now unequivocally share the ownership of king george's war. This is the stupidest yet in a long chain of stupid political decisions.

For six years, we've been hearing crap about political capital and not having enough votes as rationalization for the congressional "Democrats" voting like republicans. It's time they stood up and stood for something--ANYTHING except political expediency.

[puebloknot]

43. "You can't hurt a troop by defunding the war." Quoting...

the inestimable David Swanson from his article at the link below.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/92

Also from that article:

"Third, the war funding has nothing to do with changing the level of equipment and services we provide the troops; the big bucks go to mercenaries, not troops; and the really big bucks go to the profiteers providing the worst services for the highest prices."

Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been pointing out forever that there is enough money "in the pipeline" right now to bring the troops home safely. That statement, by itself, does not answer the question of what happens in Iraq if we withdraw. What we do know is that failure to bring our troops home means many more deaths in an illegal war. Kucinich continues to advocate "American troops out; UN troops in." We need to leave. As to whether the UN, or anyone else in the world, wants to mop up the mess we've made is open to speculation.

Although I can't furnish a link at this juncture, I clearly remember hearing Nancy Pelosi say two things in television interviews, *before* she became Speaker: 1) Impeachment is off the table; 2) (paraphrasing) "Of course we are not going to cut off funding for the war because we support the troops." (Words to that effect.)

While I am one of those angry and dissillusioned Dems who is considering other choices (knowing full well what the implications may be), I was never taken in by Nancy Pelosi. I have found her many statements that she wants to "work with this President (sic)," and her fawning over Dubya in public, quite disgusting. Someone needs to take a principled stand, stop funding the war, and go forward with an appreciation for the ability of the American public to smell a rat, or to see a real and intelligent leader!

We have war criminals in our White House. I can appreciate that many in Congress are fearful of taking a stand because they recall the still-raw death of Paul Wellstone. I ask myself if I have a right to ask our elected leaders to risk their lives for my country. While I am not in favor of anyone putting himself/herself foolishly in danger, I often consider that our elected leaders took the same oath to support and defend the Constitution that my father took before he became a soldier in World War II. I also consider that they are doing what the German generals did -- trying to endure, with the assumption that Hitler couldn't last too much longer, and they would be needed in a post-war Germany.

I do not submit these ramblings as solutions. I am simply thinking out loud in response to the several points of view expressed in this thread. I can only say with certainty that we are on a disastrous course, and a mid-course correction must happen if we are to survive. Assuming that the "inroads" the Dems are making will save us is a foolish assumption, in my opinion.

I believe we have come to a point where we must consider the value of passion over rationality -- or at least a balancing of the two -- if we are to save our country. While we sit in our ivory towers, contemplating the nature of things in the country, and in the Middle East, another generation of treasured lives (treasured by those who love them; not by their country) is being lost.

Very truly yours,

Judy Barrett
American Citizen and Soldier's Daughter
Santa Fe, New Mexico

[Telly Savalas]

41. Jeapordizing political capital for a whole host of other important issues

is only a risk if actual work is being done towards those other issues.

[ComerPerro]

44. they want every pet issue of theirs to be passed right away, or will take their ball and go home

[Amonester]

45. boo-hooo... they're still free to choose what they want...

watta concept... freedom of thought, and of speech, that is...

[ComerPerro]

48. yeah, and they can drag the country downhill in the process.

All because they didn't get their instant gratification.

They must have really short memories if they can't remember the 2000 election (third parties worked so well then) and what it was like with total Repig dominance.

[Seabiscuit]

46. OK, I've never said this in so many words before in a thread:

ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GeorgeGist]

49. To an inside observer ...

the Dems are afraid to call Bush's bluff. If they don't call it, will the outsiders? Or will they fold too?

[converted_democrat]

51. I don't agree with your post at all..

The Dems have had several shots, and every time they've held the ball. Pelosi is worthless. She isn't capable of keeping the team on the same page, she is completely against impeachment, and has blinked on every issue thus far. Reid at least appears to be awake, though I'm not sure of his effectiveness as a leader. I don't know if we just have really poor leaders that can't lead, or if we have leaders and players that are playing for the other team.. Either way, the country is in real trouble. The will of the people is being ignored. The Dems have the people of America behind them, if they won't take it to the basket now, when will they?

[lonestarnot]

52. Sorry, but there is plenty they could do.