So, what did Olbermann (and those here who agree with him) want, exactly?

[Harper_is_Bush]

Since no bill would get the votes to overcome a veto, that was not an option. I think everyone recognizes that.

So then the option, as explained to me by others here when I asked, is essentially a game of chicken. Keep sending bills with a timetable until the war ends.

Kieth mocks the threat by Bush that the troops won't be funded because Bush can find the funds, and it's ultimately his responsibility.

Here's what I don't like about that: If Bush is capable of making the troops suffer in this game of chicken, regardless of the fact that it would be his own fault, he will blame the Dems. Still, the POLITICAL question of who is to blame is pointless, because the simple truth is the troops would be caught in the middle and made to suffer.

If Bush is capable of such a move then the Democrats did the right thing.

They couldn't risk having Bush endanger the troops.

[bigmonkey]

1. So what are you saying, then?

A sufficiently ruthless president always does, and always should, win a conflict like this? That the important thing is to knuckle under to the tyrant if he displays enough callous disregard for the troops?

[Harper_is_Bush]

8. I'm saying the Dems did the best that could be done, in the circumstances.

All this talk of rolling over is BS. If they had fought it the way some wish they had (ie. keep sending a timeline bill) then the troops would have been in the middle. Jepordizing the troops should not be an option.

And in September, which is when this funding runs out, they should have the votes. No?

[bigmonkey]

28. BS it's not.

They didn't even make Bush commit to holding the troops hostage, which is basically his position. They keep thinking ahead to conclusions like "well, we'll lose that vote, so let's forget even trying." I don't believe they've ever sent a bill including a timeline, so why the emphasis on the pointlessness of repeatedly sending such a bill? Bush has already put the troops in the middle - he's holding them hostage to his policy. You seem to be saying that is a winning position for him to take until some unspecified point in the future. The troops' situation won't change if they send the bill with timelines, and it's vetoed once.

Are you assuming they'll have the votes in September because Bush will be in such deep trouble by then because of the blossoming scandals? I'm not so sure. To quote another DUer, these guys (the republics) have "wriggled out of more tight spaces than a really wriggly thing that always gets out of tight spaces."

[Redstone]

41. Fuck a bunch of "best that could be done." That's the COWARD'S way out.

What the hell ever happened to people having the courage of their convictions?

What happened to my America, where people didn't take the easy way out? americans are DYING. Iraqis are DYING. Every day. And all for nothing.

And you'll make EXCUSES for congress permitting that to continue?

Redstone

[Harper_is_Bush]

44. You're angry, but not making any sense. n/t

[Redstone]

48. Every day, Americans DIE. Every day, Iraqis DIE. Where does that not make sene to you?

Redstone

[Harper_is_Bush]

57. You're not addressing the topic. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. What topic?

We invaded a country and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. 3400+ of our soldiers are dead. Tens of thousands have lost limbs.

This is not about Dems getting elected. It's about ending the carnage. The bastards we elected refuse to do what is right because they are more concerned about their own fucking elections in 18 months. I find that sick. They caved in to the monster in the WH.

And yes, you can call me angry too.

[Harper_is_Bush]

86. Nor are you. n/t

[maggiegault]

112. I Agree With You, 100%, This Is about their own political skins, not doing right by our troops

They care about themselves, only themselves, despite a mandate from the American people. So afraid of King George and what Rove might say. They could care less about the troops and their constituents.

[madokie]

140. Yes, do call me angry too

[Virginia Dare]

137. Having courage of your convictions died with JFK...n/t

[deutsey]

146. You're making sense to me.

:thumbsup:

[frogcycle]

2. "They couldn't risk having Bush endanger the troops."

well, that would certainly have given them pretty much unanimous support to ride him out of town on a rail

[Clark2008]

3. For the Democrats to stand up and say NO!

Sure, it wouldn't overcome a veto, but so what? That would put the ball back in pResident Stupid's court.

Don't like the war? Blame Bush. The Dems TRIED to get us out.

See?

[Harper_is_Bush]

11. You don't address the issue of the troops being caught in the middle.

If there ARE consequences to funding running out (ex. supplies not arriving), which is my supposition, then there was no other option....even if it WAS a political winner, as you describe.

[AZBlue]

18. EXACTLY

And please don't hold your breath waiting for a response to that point because you won't get one. Unfortunately there's a loud minority on this site that are narrow-minded and want to argue for argument's sake. They don't see the whole picture - they have blinders on and only see what they want to see. If the troops are "funded" now and they don't have enough ammo, guns, armor and other supplies, what on earth would it be like for them if they weren't funded????!??

[Clark2008]

119. Sorry I went to bed - so I'll make him stop holding his breath.

:eyes:

And, I would suggest YOU read about how we stopped the Vietnam War (it was defunded). How the Civil War was stopped (the Union blocked food deliveries to the Confederacy).

The troops are already in the middle. They're already having their meals cut, their ammo cut, their funding diverted to the likes of KBR and Halliburton etc. They're already there.

I have no blinders on - in fact, unlike most DUers, I don't expect us to leave NOW. We can't. We need benchmarks and diplomacy outside of the military to meet those benchmarks before we can begin a reasoned pullout. We have Geneva Convention requirements to meet and obligations to the Iraqi citizenry after we gutted their infrastructure. We cannot leave the region destablized (and, yes, I fully understand that we destablized it).

The point is that the Democrats were elected in 2006 in an attempt to get us out of there in reasonable measure - reasonable. And, by capitulating, they're hurting the troops further down the road, hurting the American people and hurting the country. They're not providing any reasonable timeline or even attempting to provide it.

Now - you can say I'm narrow-minded and want to argue for argument's sake, but it seems to me that I've actually thought it out a bit more than you have. I know the only way to end an ideological war of no merit is to defund it in some measure. You don't seem to have grasped that concept - or read any history regarding it - yet.

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. THE TROOPS ARE FUNDED

Sheesh, like Keith said tonight, are you people so stupid you actually believe they will have to walk home unless the Dems give bush everything he wants? Good grief.

[tavalon]

173. That really, really would suck

but many more of them will die than would if Bush were forced to pull out the troops as he would have to IF HE DIDN"T HAVE THE MONEY.

It disgusts me to use the troops in this way but Bush must be stopped. I know that American lives are so much more precious than Iraqi lives but if we count those lowlife ragheads :sarcasm: , over half a million people have lost their lives over there. As ugly as it is, we may have to make the Shrub hold the troops hostage so that we don't stay there for more than a decade like in that other war from the sixties. What was the name of that war?

So the choice as I see it is between closing the purse strings or impeaching Bush and Cheney (there is the choice of doing both but Congress doesn't seem to be able to multitask).

One thing that should never have been the choice was to capitulate and call it compromise. While they are both long words that begin with the letter C, that is where the similarity ends.

[MADem]

21. And have Lieberman give the Senate to Cheney? Is that really what we want????

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJGabSW6Ddzo&refer=home

Read this, and vomit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. Yes gag me is right

He has voted against his former party on every bill and every amendment demanding troop withdrawals this year.

Still, Reid, 67, heaps praise on Lieberman. ``As strongly as he is opposed to what the vast majority of Democrats want, he also has been a gentleman within the caucus,'' the Nevadan told reporters May 3. ``We don't have a greater gentleman in the Senate than Joe Lieberman.''

:wtf:

[MADem]

108. The reason for this is explained in post 107.

I'd rather have poor Harry suffering for all of us than that alternative, frankly.

[tavalon]

174. His kind of gentleman, we don't need

As much as I want to throw Lieberman out of our party, I am able to hold down my bile until after the next election. I think we will have a bigger majority then and I hope they tell Lie berman to fuck off!

[Tamyrlin79]

78. Nope.

The senate's organizing resolution has already been passed. Lieberman can switch, but it won't change anything in the senate.

[Egnever]

91. Is that true?

and if so how long does that stay in place? Till the next elections? If so I would say its time to force joe to get the fuck out!

[MADem]

107. The "majority party" (which would be the GOP) can override the organizing resolution

If every single GOP member agreed to go along with the program. It's discussed in vibrant detail here, but the essential elements boil down to this:

Here's the likely effect of Lieberman switching (analogous to the nuclear option):
1. Lieberman announces he will caucus with the Republicans

2. A Republican Senator makes a point of order that the current Senate rules giving control to the minority caucus are unconstitutional.

3. The chair (Dick Cheney) rules that the Senate rules are in fact unconstitutional.

4. A Democratic Senator appeals the ruling of the chair.

5. A Republican Senator makes a motion to table that appeal

6. The motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair carries, 51-50, with Dick Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote.

7. Senator McConnell becomes Majority Leader, Senator Lott becomes Majority Whip, Senator Stevens becomes President Pro Tempore, etc.


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/3/19/20910/4819

[proud2BlibKansan]

116. From your link:

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

[MADem]

125. SCROLL down. THat's the original assertion, that is refuted at the end of the discourse nt

[Clark2008]

120. It wouldn't happen this year, anyway.

Committee selections are already set in place.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/liebermans_switch_wouldnt_flip.html

[MADem]

136. There's a little known parliamentary procedure that the GOP can use to obviate all that

I note it in post 107.

And BOOM--Bob's yer uncle, and McConnell is yer Majority Leader. And all those committee leaders go from Chairman to Ranking Member.

And I've no doubt that Cheney would do it if he had the chance. After all, during this administration, we've been witness to threats and bribes on the floor of Congress in the wee hours of the morning, courtesy of CSPAN.

[TahitiNut]

43. It would only take 41 Senators to halt funding for the Iraq War.

Nothing to veto. No funding. Period. Cheney/Bush can use their fucking personal credit cards to bring them home ... or just tell Halliburton to do it. (Hint: It'd be cheaper to transfer 'em to eastern Afghanistan and look for Osama.)

[jollyreaper2112]

4. get in front of the message, don't bend over and take it

Bush was playing a game of chicken with the dems and they blinked. No, even worse, they bent over and took it up the ass like prison bitches. The appropriate response is to keep sending the fucker back the same bill. Of course they don't have enough votes to make it veto-proof. So what? They should force Bush to keep vetoing it while saying "Look, we'll give you the fucking money but there are some conditions we cannot negotiate on." Don't even let him take the first shot of portraying the dems as weaklings, go on the offense. "Why does Bush hate the troops? Why does he hate the thought of putting an end to this war?" Make HIM have to answer accusations instead of the other way around.

I'm furious with these cowards.

[B Calm]

5. You lost me with your last sentence... duh

What the hell has Bush been doing sice the start of this oil war? He's been endangering the troops all along...

[Harper_is_Bush]

36. Let's give each other the considerationof intellectual honesty here

the point is (or rather, the question) would the troops be suffering/endangered MORESO if funding was removed.

The fact that they suffer and are endangered now is true, but not relavent in the context of the question of a proposed showdown/game of chicken between the Dems and Bush with the troops in the middle.

duh.

[Moochy]

162. "troops in the middle"

That whole farcical construction is a Republican lie. I'm all for some "intellectual honesty" starting with refuting that frame. Don't blindly accept the Republican language. Accepting the conservative movement's bullshit frames is why so many are "ashamed" of the "dirty word" liberal.

[mhatrw]

179. Really? How would they suffer moreso than dying & getting blown up?

Please explain.

[NightWatcher]

6. we wanted a fight

we got the quick surrender. Instead of making bush look like the bad guy, they now look weak- which is what they are afraid of. They sent him the message to do what he wants

[Malikshah]

7. As was said by a particularly interesting individual-- GO DOWN

FIGHTING.

Make a stand. Show an iota of courage.

Oh... and REPRESENT the people, not your own failings and inadequacies.

[Ilsa]

9. They needed to keep telling the spoiled brat in the WH "No way!"

Yeah, so what if they "get blamed by right wingers for losing the war by withdrawing." It's all over but the dying and paying for the shit. the 70% that want us out of there aren't going to put up with lies blaming the Dems, and will be grateful that their loved ones are coming home.

[flyarm]

10. for the dems to do the right thing,,stand up and fight..they were elected to stop this war,,

and to do the right thing..not capitulate for their own political survival..and now whoever capitulates will lose..and rightly so!

do the right thing..you may take a hit in the short term.. but in the long run..you will be the one proudly left standing..

tell the truth and do the right thing..is that so damn hard?????????

seems so anymore...

fly

[Solly Mack]

12. The troops are suffering anyway. Bush has already endangered the troops

They have suffered from the get go - they were sent to Iraq without proper equipment, without proper supply lines, which meant they weren't getting supplies, and they are still suffering from the exact same problems several years later.


As a military family I can tell you that "but the troops will suffer" doesn't hold any weight with me since the troops are already dying and they are already suffering and have been since the word "invade"

Yes, Bush WILL, with absolutely no problem whatsoever, deliberately cause the troops to experience greater deprivation in order to make a point.

But still, "the troops will suffer" excuse is meaningless to me and mine (and we're not the only military family that feels this way)..cause well, gee, they are already dying for nothing but lies

"fund the troops" is a bullshit talking point since at NO time during this cluster-fuck have the troops been funded - had they been, they would have armor and proper vest from the word go - and they didn't..and they still don't. So those so-called "funds" are going somewhere and it ain't to the troops.

Just to let you know what this military family thinks. I expected exactly what happened to happen.

The troops and their families are being fucked over good and proper. It comes as no surprise to any military family that the troops will continue to be fucked over good and proper.

[bigtree]

31. I hear your views loud and clear, but why is it wrong to expect the troops to get what they need

and actually do something to make certain they get those things that have been seriously underfunded?

It's not as if the showdown over the funding bill was going to bring the troops home anytime soon. That effort repeatedly failed to get the necessary amount of support from this Congress at this time. What is wrong with giving these troops what's been denied them for four years *while the politicians squabble?

Are you really that confident they'd rather not have the equipment and supplies they need just so we can make some sort of political stand here at home?

How many troops do you think would be okay with the proposition that their supply chain may evaporate because of the failure of the politicians to compromise?

Do they believe that kind of sacrifice from those without adequate equipment or supplies would eventually bring them home? Are they alright with the risks associated with that strategy?

Who sacrifices, and for how long?

[Solly Mack]

53. LOL. How much money has already been spent? And yet the troops STILL

are going without proper and needed equipment.

<What is wrong with giving these troops what's been denied them for four years *while the politicians squabble?>


If after 4 years and billions of dollars the troops still don't have what they need - you really think it's going to be different now? You really believe it's suddenly going to get better now? You believe that, suddenly, the money will go to supplying the troops properly now? You really believe that fairytale? That somehow this current funding supplement is somehow different from all the other supplements that DID NOT supply the troops properly?

<Are you really that confident they'd rather not have the equipment and supplies they need just so we can make some sort of political stand here at home? >

That's a strawman.I NEVER - EVER - not even once - said the troops would rather go without equipment and as it is your strawman, you'll have to deal with it.

<How many troops do you think would be okay with the proposition that their supply chain may evaporate because of the failure of the politicians to compromise?>

That's a bullshit question as no troop is OK with bad supply lines - but they got them anyway because they have NEVER been properly funded in Iraq. And FYI, in case you haven't been paying attention, the politicians have ALREADY failed and I see no need in pretending they haven't. They failed from the get go - or we wouldn't even be in Iraq.

<Do they believe that kind of sacrifice from those without adequate equipment or supplies would eventually bring them home? Are they alright with the risks associated with that strategy>

LMAO Sacrifice? You really want to talk sacrifice? LMAO You really want to talk about who is doing the sacrificing? And you really want to talk about sacrifice due to a lack of equipment? HELLO? Are you listening or being intentionally obtuse?

THEY HAVE NEVER HAD THE PROPER EQUIPMENT. Not once. From the very beginning. Risky strategy? LMAO Iraq has been nothing but a risky strategy based on failed politicians and their delusions - delusions that have done nothing but bring sacrifice to military families.

Tell yourself anything you have to tell yourself to get through the day (trust me, I don't care) but don't blow smoke up my ass - my government does that enough.

[bigtree]

59. you didn't say a word I don't agree with

except for, why is it wrong to provide the money and work to make certain it gets to the troops? We can see that the strategy of holding Bush to the timetables attached to the funding wasn't supported by enough legislators. That effort has failed so far.

Why is it credible to act like just withholding funds was going to move Bush anytime soon? If we want a timetable we should work to get the necessary amount of support in Congress to pass a bill that Bush can't veto. We don't have that now. We know this. That amount of support for a timetable is not going to happen anytime soon.

What good does it do to just keep holding on to the money that our own party says they need? The money that our own party says the troops have been denied for the four years of republican rule? Either we have the votes for a timetable or we don't. Using the funds that would go to the troops already deployed as a bargaining chip indefinitely doesn't sit well with me. I think it does matter at some point what the troops think, what they want, what they say they need.

I've read what you've written about what you are going through and I respect and have much sympathy for what you are experiencing, but there are other views. Many folks have been working and advocating for the things we both know the troops have been lacking. It's not unreasonable to expect that our Democratic majority can at least once do the job of giving the troops what they need and deserve while they are deployed, while the politicians decide whether they should be there or not. I just don't believe that holding the funds back is the right way to move Bush. I think the effect is all on the troops and does little to affect any decision Bush has made about continuing. I think that politicians in Congress should make their decisions about whether we are in Iraq or not without using the funds for the equipment and supplies that these troops need and deserve as leverage. I don't think that's too much to ask.

[Solly Mack]

63. You mean like "they" have worked to get it to them in the past?

The game is rigged - don't you get that?

Congress gives Bush his money and the DOD pays it out, and Congress, as much they want to believe they control spending under Bush, won't know where that money goes. They can't find billions now. It just went *poof*..and they can hold all the hearings they want - go through the motions all they want - and they will never find that money.

If Congress hasn't been able to make sure the money went to needed equipment before now, how is now going to be any different?

Congress has been marginalized by Bush. That's not snark - that's just the plain out truth.

Bush will do as he please regardless of Congress. Who doesn't know that? He always has and he always will get away with it. I see absolutely no evidence, to include all the hearings, that suggest Bush won't continue to get away with doing as he pleases.


OK. I see..Look. I don't expect a timetable. I don't expect my government to ever do anything about sending the troops off to die for lies and trumped up evidence. I wasn't caught off guard by the funding going through without a timetable..I never believed it would have a timetable. I thought it was just posturing. (though I hoped it wasn't)

Allow me to be crystal clear on this...

I do not expect my government - which is made up of 3 branches (on paper anyway)- to ever do anything about it. I just don't. I expect my government to continue to allow people to die until it becomes politically expedient for them to stop the dying. Ugly - but there it is...

Allocating the money does not guarantee that money will go to getting the troops the needed equipment (evidence of which is in abundance) - and there is nothing Congress can do about it. Oh, I know they have the power to do something but the thing is, once the money goes to the DoD, the DoD pays it out...and the DoD has lost billions(well, they call it "lost"). The provisional govt. under Bremer lost billions(well, he called it "lost")...and trust me on this, billions will continued to be lost and the troops will continue to go without all they need - primarily because it is the war profiteers who get their cut first..and they have no problems bilking the govt. (Halliburton, for example)

You mentioned the troops being caught in the middle. Believe me, WE KNOW. Our soldiers, our loved ones, are caught in the middle of a "we support the troops more than you do" game being played out in DC and the troops are DYING while the game is being played. So believe me, we know.

I would like people to understand that NONE of these political games have anything to do with actually supporting the troops. We're just a handy tool to use, one side against the other.


And that's where my anger lies...

[mhatrw]

180. Here's an old saying. "Money doesn't mean anything ...

... until it runs out."

[Tamyrlin79]

80. Their supply chain will evaporate??

So, you are assuming that the president would leave them in that mess without supplies/funding? If so, how is that not the President's problem? I fail to see how the blame here falls on the Democrats.

[stillcool]

13. I don't think the troops could possibly..

be in any more harm than they already are. As it is, billions have been 'lost', unaccounted for. Congress needs to ACT, to save these lives. Anyway they can. To capitulate is to cede their responsibility to act as representatives of the people...AGAIN.

[mondo joe]

14. What I wanted was for them to stick to their guns, and approve a limited expenditure with required

timetables.

If they weren't going to stick with that, why even threaten to do it?

[MADem]

15. Who the hell knows? Have the Dems stand up and shake their fists, and have Joe Lieberman flip to

the GOP, perhaps???

Which would make Senate President Cheney VERY HAPPY.

Olbermann's failure in logic is that he thinks Bush thinks like ordinary people, and has emotions like regular folks.

Bush doesn't give a shit about the troops. He'll let them bleed and die. He'll trade their blood for oil. And he won't think twice. He's not running for reelection, after all. He may be a lame duck, but he's free to tell the pollsters and anyone who disagrees with him, to, in Cheneyesque language, fuck themselves, too.

I found the railing at Harry Reid just, well, purposeless. Reid is on a hellish tightrope, and no one appreciates it--they're all eager to beat the shit out of him without really seeing his circumstances. If he doesn't stick his nose up Lieberman's ass and keep it there, Lieberman flips. And Joementum LOVES the feel of poor Harry's nose on his anus. It's just...CRAVEN. My sympathies are with Senator Reid...he's gotta be one of the most miserable Majority Leaders in history.

No one is stepping back and seeing this big picture. They'll do a Homer Simpson "DOH!!!!" if they wake up to see Cheney snarling while he casts a deciding vote, though....

[Blue_Roses]

168. You know

this is the best post I've read today. I too, feel sorry for Reid and the sad thing about saying that on a DEMOCRATIC website--that I've been coming to for five years now--is the anger that will be spewed because, GOD FORBID, I take up for him. I've used to love coming here. The camaraderie and support in the dark six years has been awesome. However, today, just makes me sick...

Geeze...I need a beer.

Thank-you...

[MADem]

176. I try to forgive...!! Even though I too am frustrated. I realize a couple of things.

A lot of the people venting just don't 'get' how the system works. They think they do, but they don't (they get mad as hell, too, if you tell them how it works, and take it out on you!!

There's no willingness to even hear anything other than their own cheering/blaming squad, unfortunately). They actually think that 'failure doesn't weaken' up on the Hill, when the exact opposite is true. They don't understand the whole process of counting noses, of 'symbolic votes' and the enforcement of party discipline on a vote (which should only happen if we can succeed).

They don't understand that Harry Reid, Lord love the fellah (and he's a bit conservative for me, normally, but I'm with him on this business) is doing the DIRTIEST job in the Senate, nowadays, and one I surely don't envy.

Have two of those beers...and stay cool today!!!

[mhatrw]

182. Lose the Senate, if necessary. What good is it doing us? n/t

[aquart]

16. Meanwhile, why isn't there any baskin robbins in the green zone?

[maggiegault]

111. My brother bought his beloved Chai Latte at their coffeehouse the morning that he died

[BlooInBloo]

17. To send up the same bill. Over and over.

[Harper_is_Bush]

38. A short-sighted view, given the points made in the OP.

[BlooInBloo]

39. So say you.

[rucky]

138. That's John Edwards' take, too.

and a good one.

[Virginia Dare]

143. I think that's where most people's anger lies..

that they didn't do that. I sort of lean that way, that they should have just kept saying "fuck you" to Bush over and over again.

On the other hand, I feel certain that the MSM would have TRASHED the Democrats over it. And in the back of my mind I'm thinking that a "horrible tragedy" (if you know what I mean) would occur in Iraq, and somehow the Dems would catch the blame for not sending the funds, or for sending the wrong message, or any number of bullshit things.

Really, there weren't any good options, so I think the Democrats figured they'd bite the bullet and take their lumps now, and hopefully come back at them again, in an even stronger position politically, especially as things deteriorate in Iraq.

It seems that until we can get enough Republicans to see the light, we are over a barrel as far as ending the war, but I do think that most Democrats are stil committed to getting us out.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. The ultimte moment of cowardice in your post: "he will blame the Dems"

SO.

FUCKING.

WHAT?

The funding makes the troops suffer. Period. The continuation of this war makes the troops, their families, the Iraqi people, and our nation suffer. Period.

Fucking snakes and their apologists.

Maybe it's time for the Democrats to do what is right, rather than cowering in fear before Bush's potential blame?

[bigtree]

maybe it is right to give the troops stuck in Iraq because of our faliure to move Bush

the funding they need to keep their supply chain intact and to ensure they have adequate equipment,armor, and other essential supplies when they need them. Those folks work 7days a week, 24 hrs a day. They don't deserve to be left hanging while the politicians squabble.

[alcibiades_mystery]

109. The supply chain needs to0 be funded enough to remove them

Where's the ole military can-do attitude?

[tavalon]

175. No, 'tis a far better thing that they die

:eyes:

[mmonk]

20. Again, war and funds lie with the congress, not the executive branch.

They have no guts for a showdown attempt.

[MADem]

25. Well, there's all that BLACK OPS dough, BILLIONS, that could be shifted if need be... NT

[mmonk]

33. There's always unconstitutional money in our broken system.

[MadHound]

22. The Dems have an option to end this war quickly

It is the power of the purse. Hold up each and every supplemental war funding bill in committee. Since the basic needs of the troops are taken care of through the regular 532.8 billion dollar annual defense budget, cutting off the supplementals will not cut off the troops. Bush needs those supplementals to fund his war, if he dips in to the military budget to fund his war, the Republicans will enter articles of impeachment.

Hold up the supplementals, defund this war and end the madness.

[Virginia Dare]

144. Hopefully that is what they will do...n/t

[Nite Owl]

23. The first thing that they could have

done is pass a bill to bring the troops home immediately. Negotiate from that point instead of a weak compromise that they did pass. Maybe then we could have at least gotten that bill. They have let * set the terms of the negotiations, they have been followers not leaders. It's like they gave up before they started as if they never had any intention of winning this. The least that they could do is keep sending back the same bill for him to veto. They gave him all the funds, he was the one not funding the troops but they couldn't even bring themselves to say that. They could have turned the public but they didn't even try.

[Harper_is_Bush]

35. "pass a bill to bring the troops home immediately"....what would that have accomplished?

Another useless veto round. And then....?

[Nite Owl]

45. A point from which to negotiate

When you negotiate a deal you always ask for more than you intend to get. The dems left no room for compromise without failure for themselves.

[mmonk]

49. If they want to end the war, all they have to do is pass a resolution

deauthorizing the war. Congress has the sole right to declare war. Once that resolution passes, they can bring them home. No vetoes. No negotiations. It would be over at that point.

[hfojvt]

113. such a bill cannot be passed

look at the Reid-Feingold bill. It lost 28 to 67. It takes 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate because you need cloture. Also, Blue Dogs in the House would not support such a bill, because their red-state constituents do not support it.

[VoltaireAmericain]

24. Stimulating

Does anyone actually think Bush is crazy enough to bankrupt the troops? I think that is a really honest and legitimate question that needed to be answered. And by the way, the Democrats would not have bankrupted the troops -- therein lies their concern about how far George Bush would go to get his way. He is a man-child crybaby to put it lightly.

[AuntPatsy]

29. Interesting, your last line, being he is what you say he is, there is no telling

just how far he would go, by the way Welcome to Du....I hope you enjoy it here.

[Harper_is_Bush]

32. Welcome to DU VoltaireAmerican! And thanks for seeing the jist

of my thinking on this.

Too many are just reacting in anger and accusing the Dems of caving/capitulating. I don't think they've considered the how the scenario would play out if they played chicken with Bush on this.

[Virginia Dare]

145. I think Bush is crazy enough to commit mass murder to get his way..

and I think he already has. I put nothing past him. I doubt the Democrats do either.

[B Calm]

26. So what was the price for gas today? 3,4 ,or 5 US soldiers?

[AuntPatsy]

27. I've thought of it in that way realizing that when it comes to bush

there is no telling what he would do and who he would allow to suffer in order to get his way but do you honestly believe that the people of this nation at least the majority would allow him to do such?

[derby378]

30. What did we want, exactly? RESULTS.

We put the Democrats in charge to get a job done. Right now, they are planning on how to do the exact opposite of that job.

Harry Reid is in danger of becoming this nation's Neville Chamberlain. You do not, do not, do not strike a deal with the Devil. Because you will most definitely get burned.

[Harper_is_Bush]

34. You do not address my central concern.

I understand you want "results", and you wanted the troops out of Iraq and voted for Dems for that reason, but I assume that you do not want the troops to suffer in the process?

And yes, I understand they're suffering now...but is it possible they could suffer and be endangered MORE than they are now by a removal of war funding? If so, and if Bush is enough of an evil fuck to go that route, then I'm not sure you've thought through the "how" of the "what" you want.

[derby378]

52. Every soldier goes into battle with a politician on his back...

And trust me, that "war funding" would never filter into actual support for the troops. Herr Decider has too many contractors and subcontractors and Blackwater mercenary types who still want their cut. Guess who gets screwed over anyway? GI Joe, fresh out of the recruiter's office in Flint.

[MADem]

37. Oh PLEASE. Cut with the Neville Chamberlain repetition. I found that offensive when KO said it.

Ole Neville didn't have Joe Fucking Lieberman breathing down his neck.

If the Senate shifts to "Cheney the Decider" because Lieberman jumps ship, I'll thank your "results oriented" approach for losing the Senate for us. Because that's the kind of "results" you'll get.

Don't shoot the messenger. Take it up with Jumping Joe: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJGabSW6Ddzo&refer=home

[derby378]

46. I never promised you that the facts would be easy to swallow...

And instead of blaming Joe Lieberman for everything from the capitulation on the Hill to my aunt's gout, here's another grain of truth: the Senate is lost either way.

If the Senate shifts back to Republican control, the Senate is lost.

If the Senate votes to give Herr Decider everything he wants, the Senate is lost.

Either way, our troops suffer as a result.

The solution? Simple. Democrats on Capitol Hill need to GROW A FUCKING PAIR.

[MADem]

51. No, that is NOT TRUE. The Senate is NOT lost either way.

Those aren't FACTS you cite.

The Senate is only lost if Cheney is the deciding vote on EVERY issue, from troops to health care to education to cops on the street. You name the issue, CHENEY decides. That's a LOST Senate.

So long as Reid holds power by a slim thread, there are some GOP senators who feel that they have wiggle room and can buck the system. Especially if the Democratic majority hands them a bit of bacon every so often for their trouble, so they can go home with a "win" for their state.

But if Big Dick is breathing down their necks, well, that's a different story. He WILL enforce party discipline, and if they don't vote the way he says, he will freeze them out by stripping their pork from bills, and telling the RNC not to give them reelection money, and putting up candidates against the 'betrayers' in their primary races.

Christ, no one gets how this shit works. It's pork for votes, people...it's cash for cooperation. It is machine politics when machine politics are called for. And this isn't NEW. It's POLITICS. It is what it is, and what it has always been.

And that "GROW A FUCKING PAIR" nonsense is childishly absurd.

The critics of Senator Reid need to grow a pair of ears to hear, and eyes to see--then perhaps they will appreciate the dirty, ugly, sausage-making reality of politics, and the horrible position he finds himself in. I think he's conducting himself with remarkable dignity, given the circumstances.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJGabSW6Ddzo&refer=home

[derby378]

54. So, I guess all that "There's a new Congress in town" talk is just BS?

Politics, defined simply, is the study of deciding who gets what, where, when, why, and how much.

And no, Democrats did not send a new crop of legislators to Capitol Hill just to engage in the same trafficking in pork commodities that got our nation in the sorry shape it's in now. You speak of enforcing party discipline, and I'll go you one further by adding allocations for committees, hearings, etc. If Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader, he needs to act like it by enforcing discipline in the Senate the same way the Republicans did.

[MADem]

56. Oh boy, the ALL OR NOTHING argument.

Guess what--there IS a new Congress in town.

They can INTRODUCE legislation.

They can tell the GOP to shut the fuck up.

They can conduct INVESTIGATIONS and question the Monica Goodlings of this world.

But eh...no difference, is that your stance? Henry Waxman, John Conyers...go HOME!!!!! Derby sez there's NO DIFFERENCE! Don't BOTHER looking into any BushCo wrongdoings, the oracle has spoken.

Whatever. I don't get your reference to committee seats--those allocations have been made already. Lieberman got the Homeland Security gig he wanted. But who knows, maybe he wants more...his Bloomberg interview sure seemed to indicate that. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJGabSW6Ddzo&refer=home

Try actually reading what I wrote about Reid, why don't you? If he doesn't tread lightly with Lieberman, we LOSE the ability to make ANYTHING happen in the Senate, because Joementum WILL flip, and if we can't make anything happen in the Senate, then all legislation is BOTTLENECKED and controlled by Dick Fucking Cheney until 08.

That's why we need to keep Cheney out of the picture, by keeping Joementum happy, or getting another Republican to flip to neutralize him. But that bit about Lieberman was perhaps too much to deal with, so you kinda ignored it. Like you ignored the reality about pork and quid pro quos.

I have some horrible news for you--just because you don't think that's the way things should be run, well, that doesn't make a damned bit of difference. That IS the way things are run, and it's been that way for more than two centuries...like it or not.

I don't especially like the influence of pork and lobbyists and campaign cash, but I don't put my fingers in my ears and sing, pretending they're not there.

I see them for what they are--a disheartening reality of the political process. Not what I'd like, but not enough to make me stomp my foot, take my ball, and go home.

[derby378]

67. And meanwhile, our troops suffer overseas in an illegal occupation...

THAT is the reality of our current situation. Bush gets exactly what he wants. Democrats get nothing. And six months of blood, sweat, and tears on the part of grassroots Democrats across America gets pissed away.

I don't know any other way to convince you except to tell you that Democrats on the Hill are approaching this the wrong way. This is not politics. This is WAR. And in war, more often than not, you have a winner and a loser. Democrats cannot afford to be the loser. That's all there is to it. And right now, too many Democrats are doing everything in their power to make it happen.

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. Exactly!

THIS IS WAR. It's not about the chickenshits getting re-elected.

I keep seeing that scene from Blazing Saddles in my head -

"Gentlemen, we MUST protect our phoney baloney jobs!"

[deutsey]

148. I didn't get a harumph outta you. n/t

[MADem]

104. And your way, they'll 'suffer overseas in an illegal occupation'

Because Cheney will kill all legislation with potential to shorten the war with his tiebreaking vote, sparing George the necessity of a pesky veto.

You need to put sixty Senators, Democrats and Republicans, in the ANTIWAR camp. That's what you need to do. Until you do that, those kids are going to continue to 'suffer in that illegal war.'

How's that for a little reality for ya?

I suggest you do it this way: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/benjamin

It's mature, it's disciplined, and it has potential to be EXTREMELY effective. People with the discipline to call (or fax, or email) every day of the week are also the people who have the discipline to VOTE.

But the way NOT to do it is to hector and threaten. Insulting Reid publicly, or bullying senators in a bellicose manner guaranteed to cause Joementum to flip, isn't going to help the situation. It will only ensure that illegal occupation you're so exorcised about continues for another year and a half.

[mhatrw]

183. What EXACTLY has the Democratic SENATE done for us so far?

Please list the accomplishments of our Democratic Senate.

[AuntPatsy]

55. Take that post and make it's own thread, I was not aware of all that could happen...

[MADem]

58. Eh, to hell with it. The Olbermann groupies who think he can never, ever, say anything that isn't

one hundred percent totally true would just hijack it and call me a "Bad Progressive." The guy means well, but he's naive. And he's NOT thinking the whole process through.

It sucks being a pragmatist. I share the same goals as many here, I'm just not so dull of comprehension about how things work as to think that we can get everything we want through petitions, phone calls, exhortations and demands.

We've got a fucking snake at our breast, and his name is Joementum. He could screw us all, and he delights in that knowledge....

I understand that sometimes you have to compromise, and move the ball forward slowly, rather than make the dramatic end run...for this, I am frequently excoriated.

[Harper_is_Bush]

65. Maybe. I must say, I've never been dissappointed in Kieth like I am over this

he seems to be taking a purely emotional and simplistic view.

Maybe he's just a ratings whore after all.

[MADem]

101. He's listening to that kid he's living with, I think. Chopper Bob Tur's daughter...

(He's older than Chopper Bob, too...no fool like an old fool!)

It's not the ratings--I think he's got a bit of a Messiah attitude working--it's always a bit dangerous when you believe your own publicity. Or it could be his angst over the war is clouding his better judgment. While he's doing well ratings-wise for MSNBC, his ratings aren't THAT great in the big picture, and he doesn't reach many who oppose his viewpoint. He preaches to an already converted choir.

[AuntPatsy]

95. Take a chance and see, let it get more viewing, it won't so deep into this thread..

I think it is valid enough to check out and isn't this what DU is all about? Verifying and assuring accurate information gets passed along?

[MADem]

102. I've no energy or desire for a pissing contest. I've seen too many of them.

And my stance isn't popular, because it isn't a "To The Ramparts!!!!" demand for action. I'm suggesting that people look before they leap, step back, think things through, and move with DELIBERATE speed, not intemperately. And not do something that will leave us stuck for a year and a half.

I also like this idea, from a certified lefty, Medea Benjamin: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/benjamin

It's tactical, it's practical, and it has potential to make a REAL impact. People who can have the discipline to call their Senator, or send an email, or a fax, every morning, are people who go to the polls and vote. This kind of action can SCARE Senators to the left:

It's obvious that these Democratic candidates, who are out among the public day after day, feel the pulse of the nation and are taking antiwar positions to win votes. Unfortunately, other senators aren't feeling that same kind of pressure.

If we want to end the war, this must change. Our senators--especially the seventy-one who failed to support Feingold's bill--need to hear from us on a regular basis. So why not add to your morning routine a call to your senator with a simple reminder to bring our troops home in 2007? If enough of us make those calls, perhaps the senators will actually wake up and smell the coffee.

[proud2BlibKansan]

124. You do realize that Medea is a co-founder of Code Pink

those ladies you yourself have heaped much criticism upon here on DU?

[MADem]

126. I do, which is why I have said in other threads that I'm surprised to be agreeing with her

But you should note that she's not asking us to put on pink tutus and making asses of ourselves with this effort, is she?

She's actually proposing a MATURE course of action. One that anyone who is an adult could get behind. One that will achieve real results, and not make our side look like assholes.

Only someone who doesn't get the big picture would 'hate for hate's sake.' That's not my thing, though you seem to want to ascribe that characteristic to me, simply because I'm not on the tutu and disruption bandwagon.

I take issue with her TACTICS with the Pink Shit. That's not "SCORN"--though you want to characterize it like that...that's an honest procedural disagreement.

But hey....whatever.

Edit: Spelling Error

[proud2BlibKansan]

129. She is probably wearing a pink tutu today

since they were planning on a heavy lobbying day. :)

You can criticize how they dress. That's fine. But I am glad to see you understand that Code Pinkers do have a very good understanding of how our govt works. They do know what they are doing and how to best accomplish their goals. Some of the best workshops I have been to were organized by Code Pink. They are also willing to do so much more than most of us with their civil disobedience actions. (They also give a great workshop on how to get arrested:) )

[MADem]

130. Look, we are NOT going to agree on their tactics with the foolish costumes.

You think it's great. I think they look like idiots, and devalue the utter seriousness of what is happening to our government and our servicemembers in harm's way. I don't think it's an "ironic contrast" either--I think it makes them look like campy, attention-seeking jerks who attract negative, not positive, attention.

That's my opinion. Your mileage--I already know, you tell me at every opportunity--varies.

I like the phone call tactic. That's an effort I can get behind. It's one I've used, myself, frequently, when I have concerns over an issue. So long as one is polite, the message is taken down, the opinion recorded AND considered.

Wouldn't it have been lovely if they'd figured out THAT concept a year or two ago? They had this base of "dedicated activists" who could have spent the past year or two making two phone calls every morning, or sending two emails, or two faxes...who knows what difference that might have made? Cheaper than plane tickets and tutus, lower carbon footprint, and more effective, too, with no negative publicity repercussions. A mature and serious action for a deadly serious issue. What's not to like?

[Virginia Dare]

147. It's POLITICS..

exactly right, which is why the vast majority of us don't get it. We all want to see things black and white, you're either with us or against us. There is no nuance.

Unfortunately, there are lives in the balance, that is the sad part. That's why I never went into politics (professionally), even though it fascinates me, it's a dog eat dog world, literally. I just don't have the stomach for it.

[MADem]

178. That IS the sad part. The lives. Eight more today.

And I know what you mean about how brutal and ugly the political environment is. I butted up against it for years, and couldn't believe how dastardly (and that's the word for it, quaint though it is) those baaastids could be at times. They'll cut ya dead if it suddenly isn't 'working' for them. And they'll jump through their own assholes if you have something they need. It's all a bit, well, unseemly. And it does take an iron stomach.

This war mess, though, CAN be done. It can be done decisively, too--just not this time. If we can lean on the vulnerable Senators up for reelection in 08, we can cobble together a nice majority to pass whatever funding or defunding legislation the House sends over. And if we (and by that, I mean "us chickens") really work our asses off, a combination of nervous Senators who want to keep their seats, plus Harry Reid enforcing party discipline CAN make up a veto proof majority if need be.

But We, the People, need to concentrate on "The Vulnerables." We need to call them, write them postcards (they get through the screening system better than letters), send letters to their LOCAL offices, send them faxes, send them emails. Every day. Flood them. And not let up.

Here's the 08 bunch; the ones that need the biggest push are the Republicans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008

Once we get them in line, the Democrats can get their arms twisted by Reid, and he'll line them up for us.

[Virginia Dare]

184. Agreed, and good analysis...n/t

[Blue_Roses]

170. do you think having the minimum wage increased is a loss?

'cause I'm sure many who try to live on it right now would disagree. The Dems did that by the way. Bush didn't want, nor did he want extra money for Katrina victims, but they got it. Sad that the only way the Dems could get this wage increase was through the back door, but then we aren't dealing with "fair-minded" people.

[MADem]

181. And ya know what's the goofiest irony of all?

I'll bet you anything, the GOP attack ad in the general election, if either Obama or Clinton is the nominee, will be:

(CANDIDATE NAME--with accompanying UGLY picture, of course) voted AGAINST raising the minimum wage for hard working AMERICANS....while (GOP CANDIDATE NAME, with smiling, adorable picture) SUPPORTED THE BILL that raised the minimum wage for hard working Americans...

Whatcha wanna bet?

[jgraz]

103. Fuck that little shitstain Lieberman -- let him go

We can't pass shit anyway with Chimpolini in the White House, so what does it matter that Darth Cheney gets a vote? We still hold all the committees and subpoena power until 2009. Let Lieberman switch. Better yet, kick his worthless ass out of the caucus.

[MADem]

128. It's not just "a vote" you're talking about

It's being the big bottleneck for ANY legislation. He can influence how legislation initiated in the Senate is drafted if he's able to enforce party discipline, and he can put the kabash on anything that comes over from the House by threatening his caucus with withdrawal of RNC reelection funds and corporate donations. It makes HIM the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room.

Really, it's much easier dealing with Lieberman for the short term, and suffering poor Harry to do some uncomfortable ass kissing, until we get a few GOP Senators in the "antiwar--and actually VOTING that way" camp. Once that happens, assuming these GOP Senators are reliable, Lieberman will NOT jump, unless he's a masochist, or a fool. He likes being affiliated with power, he likes being perceived as on a winning team, and he's an attention whore. Once the antiwar ship has sailed, what's the point? The GOP could promise him everything, and maybe they will--but maybe they won't either, because, at that point, what's in it for THEM? Their "keep the war going" ship will be leaving the dock, too. Why be saddled with a whining asshole who didn't help when he could have?

[Redstone]

40. Maybe we wanted some COURAGE? Some GUTS? A Congress that wouldn't roll over

and say "yes sir yes sir, three bags full sir?"

Maybe?

Redstone

[Harper_is_Bush]

42. What does any of that rhetoric mean? Give me some specifics, please.

[Redstone]

47. How about the Congress saying what we ELECTED them to say, as in

stop this fucking madness now? How about that?

Every day, Americans DIE. Every day, Iraqis DIE. For nothing. That's not "rhetoric," that's truth.

Redstone

[Harper_is_Bush]

60. No, it's RHETORIC because it's substitutes emotion and outrage for reason

It isn't addressing the topic, and besides that, you didn't elect anyone to say or do anything specific. Dems were elected to bring the war to an end, but the how and when of that mandate was not on the ballot.

So, please, tone down your rhetoric. It helps nothing.

[Redstone]

155. If, as you say "reason" is the code word word for cowardice, I'll stick with rhetoric.

Redstone

[bigmonkey]

50. It means they refused to even get Bush on record as a hostage-taker.

You keep emphasizing the suffering of the troops, but the first round of the "send-veto" struggle would cement the blame on Bush. One round doesn't hurt the troops at all. You're acting like a "concern troll."

[Harper_is_Bush]

61. So if a lack of funding had made the troops suffer you'd have been OK with that because you see a

political win in it?

[bigmonkey]

62. You can't demonstrate any increased suffering of the troops at this stage.

This is a dishonest argument on your part. You are positing that the troops "may suffer" more if the Democrats don't go along with Bush, and concluding that outcome is ethically unacceptable. There has been no protracted struggle over this funding bill, which you admit is the only scenario that would cause "more suffering." I'm saying, and others I think are assuming, that the Dems need to stand strong against Bush at least somewhat, or they lose credibility. You seem to be saying that any vague indication that someone might suffer more in the short term is enough to make acquiescence the only ethical choice. You're conflating sending the bill with timetables and having it vetoed _once_ with a bitter struggle stretching out over months. You need to either see the leap you're making, or perhaps everyone else should conclude that you are trying to create confusion.

[Harper_is_Bush]

66. You fail to grasp what I'm saying

It's not necessary for me to "demonstrate any increased suffering of the troops at this stage".

The point is IF their suffering/endangerment COULD increase under a removal of funding.

I'm not making the argument that it would, I'm saying could it. If it could, then why would Bush not allow it to happen, to try and demonstrate his accusations against the Dems?

As for who is "trying to create confusion", it ain't me. You've done it for yourself, but perhaps I've helped with that.

[bigmonkey]

68. You've made an unreasonable suggestion.

Anything "could" increase the suffering of the troops. You are conflating the dynamic political situation with some bitter, protracted struggle over a bill with timetables. If you want me to admit that some such that stretched out over the next three months would be, possibly (but only possibly), dangerous to the safety of American troops, then I admit that. But that's not what the situation is right now. Right now we have Dems who won't even send a bill to Bush with timetables in it and let him veto it, even once. Once. To be suggesting that single exchange between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch is dangerous to the troops is ridiculous, and craven.

[Harper_is_Bush]

69. Ok. So you admit that it's possible a funding removal could endanger the troops...but you don't

think that's the "situation is right now"?

How is that not part of the current situation? I would say it's a central consideration.

as for this:
"Right now we have Dems who won't even send a bill to Bush with timetables in it and let him veto it, even once. Once. "
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought a bill (or two) had already been vetoed?

I think you have your facts wrong there. That's the whole point of not sending the bill again....they don't have the votes to override a veto. That was tested already.

In September they likely will.

[bigmonkey]

77. Once. He's vetoed it once.

You are correct, and I stand corrected on that point. My main point has been that you seem to be saying that the troops are now being endangered by a protracted struggle over the timetable. There is no enhanced danger to the troops at this time, as I see it, so the quick retreat of the Dems is seen by much of the antiwar base as capitulation. In the light of the single veto, they need to take charge of the characterization of the situation - to say that they need to cave to the Executive now is too weak for the anti-war supporters to accept, and leaves an impression of weakness for the still-undecided. It might be possible to tar Bush with hostage-taking at this point, but the Dems would need to do far more work to do that than they have undertaken so far.

In short, I don't agree that the Dems should quickly "move on" because the troops are in danger. The question of when the political struggle starts to increase the threat to them is not a simple one - after all, Bush is the CIC, and bears the ultimate responsibility. The Dems need to make the point clear as to who is keeping the troops in danger - until they make that point clearly Bush still has the upper hand in this struggle. In the long run, the troops need to be rescued from Bush, not just kept as safe as possible while still under fire.

[Harper_is_Bush]

83. I have not said the "troops are now being endangered by a protracted struggle..."

"...over a timetable".

No, I framed my opinion within the question of could the troops be endangered if the funding bill never comes.

I didn't specify when this effect would occur, but I thought it was implied to be a future event.

[Tamyrlin79]

85. Let me know how that works out for ya

they don't have the votes to override a veto. That was tested already.

In September they likely will.

If you are fool enough to believe Republican hype enough to put your faith in them on this, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

We might pull away a handful of Republicans in risky districts, but likely not enough for cloture (much less 2/3) in the Senate and likely not nearly enough in the House either. Thus, we're back to square one, right where we are right now. But if you want to trust in the Republicans, good luck with that.

[CabalPowered]

64. What I don't understand is the urgency

I thought without any resolution, they'd have funding to do everything they're currently doing through October.

Pubs never had a problem delaying on the domestic budget and passing temporary continuation budgets.

The only reason I see is to get the mandate for the Iraq oil bill, which Dems seem to be colluding on. With the exception of DK, I haven't seen any 08' candidates come out with positions contrary to the proposed legislation.

[Harper_is_Bush]

70. Can you link your first claim please? thx. n/t

[CabalPowered]

121. October 1 is the beginning of the next fiscal year

Meaning that funding is there for operations through October 1. And there's also the carryovers from the previous budgets. What's currently being considered is a supplemental on top of funding approved last year, for this fiscal year AND at the same time the baseline DoD budget for 2008.

"In the last two years, Congress included Iraq and Afghanistan war funding in the same Defense Appropriations bill that contained funds for the baseline military budget. In 2005, Congress approved $50 billion as a "reserve" fund while in 2006 it approved $70 billion as a "bridge" fund. If Congress chooses to include the $142 billion supplemental war request and the regular baseline military budget in the same appropriations bill this year, the most likely time for Congress to act will be in June (in the House) and in July (in the Senate). Most likely, a final conference committee bill will be acted upon in September (Democrats most likely will want to position themselves as the party of "fiscal responsibility" by passing all appropriations before October 1, the start of the fiscal year)."

http://www.counterpunch.org/leys05092007.html

[Blue_Roses]

171. It's the end of the fiscal quarter

This is more of a let's-hurry-up-and-get-something-passed bill so they could break. Bush wanted this wrapped up before the holiday weekend.

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. Why are the Dems responsible for what bush does?

:shrug:

[Harper_is_Bush]

89. They're not. They are responsible for predicting what such a dangerous man is likely to do...

..and then repsonding to that intelligently.

I did not say that Dems would be responsible for whatever negative effect a cutting off of funding would create.

And my focus is not on the politics of it (ex. who will people blame?).

My focus, and the question I tried to pose in the OP, is IF the troops would be adversely affected by a game of chicken Bush might play in his evil glory, then the Dems are playing it wise. Politics asside.

[proud2BlibKansan]

90. The troops are already adversely affected

in many ways. It was up to the Dems to really show their support for the troops by bringing them home. And they blew it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

92. Yeah, ok, sure. The troops are in danger now, ok. That is not addressing the topic though

It's a red herring, one that has been repeated several times.

[proud2BlibKansan]

96. And your question is silly

They are already being shortchanged. Do you honestly believe the Dems were somehow convinced the troops would suffer even more if they didn't give the president what he asked for? Talk about drinking the koolaid!

If the Dems really believed in supporting the troops they would bring them home.

It is obvious the Dems are more interested in playing political games with the president.

[KingFlorez]

75. Olbermann doesn't have a clue

He overlooks two things, one being that the Democrats tried their best, but Bush vetoed it and the other is that Reid and Pelosi do not have the authority to just stop the war. Olbermann needs to understand that no matter what Reid and Pelosi do, Bush is going to keep this war going.

[Harper_is_Bush]

93. I'd have to agree. He's lost a chunk of respect from me over this. n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

118. Same here.

He definitely did not look at things objectively this time around.

A resolution to outright defund the war died a quick and brutal death.
Timetable for withdrawal got vetoed and the Dems don't have the votes to override it.
And considering the inhumanity that is Bush, not funding them through neglect isn't an option either.

What is being offered now is probably the best option now.

[porque no]

156. You three are a triumverate of

pantywastes. Nice going. Keep up the no-holds-barred cowardice. That red stuff on your hands is blood.

Can't wait till the next time Bush needs another hundred billion and you scared little kittens who seem to have lost your mittens will you join the blood soaked repubes in whinning away another 1000 lives of our GIs and tens of thousand more Iraqis because you are damn straight cowards afraid to take a stand against the loudmouths.

Damn, what a bunch of mice.

[Harper_is_Bush]

161. I'm a coward? Try this instead: you're an asshole and an idiot.

Gee, name calling is so useful to intelligent examination of an issue, huh?

But then "intelligent examination" perhaps isn't your thing.

Your little game of accusing others of cowardice reeks like a rightwing talking point. Anyone who doesn't want to see Iraq through to victory is a coward too, huh?

Get off it.

[sampsonblk]

79. I call bullshit

This caring about the troops stuff is complete bullshit. For one, the best thing we can do for their welfare is to get them out of Iraq as soon as humanly possible. Keeping them there but sending more cash to the White House with no strings attached is a ludicrous second option.

Secondly, the only way to change the vote numbers is to go out and make our case. With this surrender, we (our party 'leaders,' that is) have given up the right to make the case that the war is wrong. If Bush is an incompetent C-in-C who has endanged our troops and our nation with his illegal war of aggression, then all Americans who know this have a moral responsibility not to offer him a dime unless its tied to ending this disaster. Anything short of that is dereliction of duty.

And this present surrender makes the Dem leadership an accessory to this catastrophe, as Bush will soon begin to point out - repeatedly.

[Individualist]

82. As do I

It's impossible to reason with someone who is hellbent on trying to defend the indefensible and has nothing to offer but obtuse arguments, recitation of cliches and talking points. I don't waste my time with people like that. Keith was right on every point.

[Moochy]

165. as do me

OP:Fear based political hackery or Krypto RW Kool Aid Drinkage?
Either way :kick: Go keith!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

81. Something. ANYTHING.

A gesture. An effort. An attempt. A statement. A demonstration. An advance. The old college try. A rousing speech. A face-off.

A meaningful march into the sunlight, as opposed to a meaningless retreat into shadow.

Something. ANYTHING.

[Virginia Dare]

149. The first bill that was vetoed is not an attempt in your eyes?

that's not even a gesture or an effort? Remember when Bush said over and over again, if you send this to me, I will veto it, but they gave him a big fuck you and sent it anyway? :shrug:

[davhill]

84. There are a lot of things that could have been tried

A pay as you go provision with a temporary surtax to finance the war. A Support the Troops bill of rights limiting repeated tours in the war zone. A series of month to month funding bills making Bush come back over and over again. Flood the White House with alternatives until one is not vetoed.

[Harper_is_Bush]

87. Well, concerning "pay as you go", this funding is only until September, no?

Which is only 3 months away.

At that point, if Iraq is not showing major signs of improvement, they will have the votes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

99. And this means they are letting the republicans run the show

By waiting till September for those magical votes, they are caving to the repukes. That means we can look forward to a summer of false terror threats and more al qaeda leaders captured. I wonder if they will capture that #2 guy for the 5th time? Maybe in August? Anything to justify even more death. It is so obvious it is unbelievable you can't see it.

Then in September, it will be wrong to end the war because we still haven't won. And I will bet my paycheck Osama will be sighted. Or maybe that #2 guy they catch for the 5th time will tell them where Osama is.

:rofl:

[Virginia Dare]

152. I don't see how the Repubs come out of this on top..

you think the Democrats look bad now? The Repubs will look ten times worse by September. They, and a handful of Democrats, are obstructing the end of this war.

[Major Hogwash]

88. Maybe they're all Edwards supporters.

And they don't want Edwards to look like a fool for suggesting that Congress keep passing a bill that Bush has promised to veto again and again.

This way Edwards doesn't look stupid - oops, too late.

[MazeRat7]

94. We want leadership out of this long national nightmare. -nt

[LynnTheDem]

97. So we all do whatever bush tells us to do, or bush will hold the troops hostage.

For how long? Decades? And if bush says he will remain The Decider and cancel elections...or hold the troops hostage?

The Dems blew it. Big time.

[porphyrian]

98. What is this obsession with counting votes before anyone votes?

For christ's sake, who is being ridiculous here? You want to know how to ensure votes? You can't, get over it. You can't even buy them and be sure, although big campaign contributions seem to have way more influence than an angry electorate. What is better, to take a risk of failing because it's the right thing to do or to fail intentionally because there was a chance it would happen anyway? Fucking bean counters...

[Rosemary2205]

100. This is step by step what I want from Congress.

1. Every single solitary Dem vote against the bill as is. Kill it. Tell America - "we heard you loud and clear" and "we will supply the oversight necessary to make sure the President takes care of troop's needs with the money that was provided already in the yearly budget".

2. Tell the President and the American people they tried to give the President what he wants but it won't pass without binding benchmarks.

3. Pass a bill with binding benchmarks designed to start a withdrawl plan out of Iraq that is safe for our soldiers by the end of this year.

4. Tell Bush to sign it or kiss off and figure out how to keep the war going -- Maybe Exxon will cough up a donation.

[leftofthedial]

105. your first paragraph is false.

Repeat after me: The responsibility of the legislative branch to exercise checks and balances against the executive DOES NOT REQUIRE A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF EITHER PARTY.

The DOD has a bazillion dollar budget. If the troops are unfunded, it's the fault of the commander bunnypants in chief.

Keep sending the same bill to the asshole over and over. Better yet, make the terms more and more and more restrictive. If the bills fail to pass, then there is no problem. The illegal occupation of Iraq would be de-funded. If he continued to veto them, his approval ratings would continue to slide and the public would exert so much pressure that even the repukes would begin to oppose king george.

this complete cave by the "democrats" stinks to high heaven. There is NO justification, whether you apply morality, logic, politics or any other reasoning. Only corruption explains this despicable vote.

[Forkboy]

106. A spine would be nice.

And see them listen to the vast number of people who want out,instead of listening to the rare cheerleaders in cowardice,whether those people are known to them personally or just a lame ass apologists on a message board.

[maggiegault]

110. Trust Me On This One: The Troops Are Endangered Every Second They Are In Iraq, Funding Or No

You have it on my very good authority :-(

Sgt. Andrew R. Weiss
KIA 5/03/07
IED blast in Western Baghdad
my brother

[Solly Mack]

114. (((maggiegault)))

[Harper_is_Bush]

160. That answer is intellectually dishonest. n/t

[bowens43]

115. Wrong. Democrats did the WRONG thing.

The troops ARE in danger already. They can't stay if they don't have the funds. The demorcatic congress apparently is a s much a lap dog as the republican congress.

[Yukari Yakumo]

117. At last, someone who agrees with me

Bush has no humanity. He'd soon rather leave the troops with nothing than bring them home if funds ever ran out. Hell, he doesn't bother to fully equip them already.

Even though only 34% of the public support the war, the Dems only hold 54% of the seats in the House and half of the seats in the Senate. If you factor in the "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House, the majority goes bye-bye. And, of course, a Repug sits in the Oval Office (whether we like or not.... mostly not).

In short, Pelosi has no choice but to craft legislation that will at least to pass both chambers. The alternative is something we don't want to imagine.

The cold hard reality is that the Dems cannot push much of any agenda at all with such a slim majority. At best, all the Dems really can be is a filter to keep laws like ones endorsing torture from happening. That's reality. The Dems cannot and will not be making policy decisions until '08 (at the very least). All they can do is keep the worst policies from happening.

I fear this place is starting to split between the fanatics and the intellectuals, with the fanatics being many times more vocal. Unfortunately, the fanatics could very well drive the intellectuals out, at which point the place will be little removed from Free Republic.

[Toots]

122. What exactly does the Defense Budget pay for?

$450 billion dollars a year is being spent on the troops and it is actually in the Budget. That is more money spent on military than the ten next largest countries in the world spend combined. Why do you feel that is not adequate? What exactly does the "Emergency Supplemental Spending" go for? It is not in the Budget. The troops basic needs are funded through Defense spending. You do know there are over one hundred thousand Private Contractors in Iraq? How are they being paid? How come so many billions just seem to disappear? Don't fall for the Canard that Defense Spending is not adequate. It is way more than adequate and it also needs to be cut. There is absolutely no reason to have off budget untraceable spending happening for Iraq. I want it stopped and then an audit held to account for what has been spent so far.

[ValiantBlue]

123. Honestly?

The troops have been underequiped in Iraq for a long time now. A lot of the money will be going straight to "civilian contractors" aka Blackwater and obviously Halliburton. Remember this bill that is being introduced is not about just funding the troops.

The Democrats should have kept sending a bill with a deadline on it. That leaves Bush on the defensive and leaves him with two choices:

*Cave in to a bill with a deadline

or

*Be forced to cannibalize funds elsewhere to sustain his war effort.

In either scenario this puts Bush in a negative light and further enrages the public. That may be the tipping point for many Republicans to turn against him before even September is here. Now you could argue that the administration could blame the Democrats for having to cannibalize funds from elsewhere. Reality is the the Democrats all they would need to do to counter that argument is to point out that Bush is only interested in escalating the war at any cost.

It is a leap of faith to wait for September where some Republicans may decided to side against him. While I think it is possible in the end it may not be enough. This is why people are upset because they know that if a capitulation has already occurred more than likely it will occur once again down the road.

[EFerrari]

127. Welcome to DU, ValiantBlue.

:)

[shimmergal]

131. Emotionally, I can identify with Keith's anger and

applaud him for saying it. I can wish they'd follow Edwards' strategy of repeatedly sending * bills he'd veto, in the hope of wearing him down till we can attract more Pubs and fence-sitters willing to defund the war.

In reality, though, Bush is a spoiled little brat, who's just determined to keep playing soldier and making more taxpayer money "disappear" into defense contractors' coffers.

Even if the Dems' original measure had passed, he would have found and/or borrowed the money to keep doing so. I don't know if even full defunding of the war would stop him. Yes, that's how we finally got out of Vietnam, but Gerald Ford was a rational commander-in-chief who believed in the constitution. It's a different situation today. The only way to stop it, I fear, is to get Bush/Cheney out of office.

And since impeachment-with-conviction-by the Senate isn't about to happen either, what options are we left with? The outlook is pretty bleak. The suggestion to keep calling our Senators is a good one, if only to keep up our spirits up.

Laugh if you will, but-- My other "action" is to pray every night that Cheney's damaged heart does a 180 flip and he'll suddenly realize how nice it would be to take his billions and retire to full-time grandfatherhood. Once he does this, we can start on W. Out before 08! Doesn't it have a nice ring? Well, stranger things have happened . . .

[NewJeffCT]

133. I had hoped they would do that, too

keep sending the same bill back to Bush... he's proven himself to be a coward before, so I believe he would either eventually back down, or lose.

Each time the bill got sent back, a few more Republics would realize their re-election chances hinged on getting us out of Iraq... and, maybe by the 5th or 6th time on his desk, there would be enough votes to over-ride a veto.

edited to add: And, I think it's wishful thinking on Cheney growing a heart. I had remarked a few years back on that movie "Day After Tomorrow" where the Cheney-like character gives an apologetic speech at the end that it was unrealistic because Cheney would still be blaming Democrats for the disaster.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

132. Did they use a manual to get out of Vietnam?

either you bring the troops home or you don't. Dems have the support of the country. It is The American People versus Bush here. To be in government you have to be strong. That also means getting the media behind you. Bush has clearly got the media under his gag order. The troops will only suffer if they stay there any longer.

[VoltaireAmericain]

134. My take:

The right has already lost the issue on the Iraq War; this is clear. Their side had nothing to lose so if Bush failed to fund the troops, then its just another loss on a losing team. The Dems however, have the support of the people behind them to end the war, and this is where it gets tricky. They could have put it on George Bush to make the move, but what do they (the republicans) have to lose? So, the Dems got the best option available and it didn't end up as a political calamity (except for some inner party bickering.) Now, this was to be expected, but they should have expected this -- George Bush was not going to roll over. When is the last time George Bush bowed down at the command of the Democrats?

[Virginia Dare]

153. Give him his fake "victory"...

he is only prolonging the inevitable at the expense of more American lives, WASTED. He is the one holding our troops hostage. He will go down in history as the WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

[WilliamPitt]

135. "They couldn't risk having Bush endanger the troops."

A dead man was found outside Baghdad on Wednesday. Such grisly discoveries have become unsurprising events in the abstract, given the current circumstances in Iraq, but this was different. This was Pfc. Joseph Anzack, Jr., one of three American soldiers captured on May 12. They found him in the Euphrates River, riddled with bullets and showing signs of torture. At least two American soldiers have been killed in the ongoing search for the two still-missing troops, and fifteen more have been wounded. Nine other American soldiers were killed in separate incidents this week, and a soldier from Minnesota lost both legs in a bomb attack against his Humvee.

Um...endanger the troops?

Never mind.

:shaking head:

[Brigid]

139. Cut off funding and bring the troops home NOW.

There are plenty of type A personalities who don't know when enough is enough, but why kowtow to them?

I guess the real turning point for me was that horrible video of that girl being stoned to death because some people didn't like whom she was dating (if they were even dating, that is). How on earth can people like that sustain a democracy, no metter how many American lives -- and how much American taxpayer money -- goes down that toilet over there. Oh, that and the fact that the Iraqi "government" goes on vacation while our troops die. I say we get out, and if the Iraqis want to continue slaughtering each other, let them.

[porque no]

141. Don't play "Dumb Democrat", we get enough of that

in reality.

Give him bills that he WILL veto, over and over and over again. It will bring the Repubes to their knees, guaranteed. But people like you are too goddamned afraid of your own goddamn shadow to do what the people want.

Fuckin' cowards.

[Yukari Yakumo]

150. Unfortunately, you live in fantasyland.

He will always veto because he's a stubborn twit.
The Repubs will harden their position, rather than soften, if we play that game.
The "people's will" and the reality that is Congress, where the Dems only have a slim majority in both chambers, are two different beasts. Stop treating both as if they are one and the same.

If you feel obliged to call some of us cowards, then I shall call you a fool, for you do not see the reality that is right now.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

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

[Moochy]

164. Hey look out! it's your shadow!

You are living in their reality, the one that they make up and we are supposed to study... one based entirely on fears and what-ifs. Hey look out, there's your shadow!

[high density]

157. I agree, keep sending the bill back to him

HE's the one that is vetoing the bill. It's not the fault of the Democrats that Bush is operating in an alternate reality.

[Harper_is_Bush]

159. Another totoal BS response.

A bunch of bluster and accusations of cowardice.

Try on some reason and logic for once.

Explain - without calling people names if you can - how a veto standoff would "bring repubs to their knees"?

And don't pretend you represent "what the people want" here, because you don't.

[Ganja Ninja]

142. No bill at all would work for me.

No more funding for Bush's oil war. Just tell him right now that there will be no more funding forthcoming and it's time to get the troops out.

[distantearlywarning]

163. That's my response, too.

Just say, "Well, we gave you a bill with funding, you vetoed it so too bad, that's all you get. Next time work with us and maybe you'll get something you want."

And move on to other business. He wants it funded, let him figure it out. That's what they should have done. But now Lord Pissypants knows he gets anything he wants, regardless of who's in Congress. The Democrats have now demonstrated that they are weak parents enabling a tantrum throwing three year old.

[SarahB]

154. Maybe for the Democrats to have done what they were elected to do.

What's Bush's support in the polls right now? Something like 28 or 29% last I knew. Anyway, it's low. The American public is sick of Bush and sick of this war. So what happens if an antiwar Republican runs in 2008? Or most likely someone who will worm and skew it to look like they are (with the mainstream media marching in step right behind them)? The Democratic leadership played into their hands like amateurs. Like little children who can't think for themselves. Our leaders need to have a damned backbone and give the American people want they want. If we don't support and stand up for our principles, it's meaningless.

[Harper_is_Bush]

158. That is a total BS response.

I'm sorry, but I'm getting a little tired of these "Do what you were elected to do" answers.

The specifics of this situation were not on the ballot, and so the specifics of this situation need to be considered in a reasonable and logical way. Anyone claiming that their opinion was that of the electorate is full of shit, quite frankly.

[glowing]

166. Don't the troops suffer no matter what? They have been suffering

for 4yrs and doing multiple tours. How much more can they take?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

167. My opinion is that they're damned if they do or don't.

Maybe someone smarter could've come up with a smarter idea - I don't know.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

169. Political parties are supposed to have some policies?

or else they would be indies. If the Democrats believed in the people (and in themselves instead of being 'weather-vanes') we would have some resolution to this mess.

[Blue_Roses]

172. another voice of reason

thank-goodness. :)

Talking to some here about this is a lost cause. They just see Pelosi and Reid as traitors. Bottom line: they were between a rock and a hard place with no where to go.

[mhatrw]

177. Let Bush "endanger" the troops.

If Bush wants to play chicken, fund enough $ to get the troops home. Nothing more and nothing less.