It's Official: Dems Co-Own The Iraq Debacle

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:07:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Meteor Blades, the Dems proved themselves liars when they said they would not fund the war without timelines:

Congress approved $70 billion Wednesday for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bitter finish for majority Democrats who tried to force a change in President Bush's war policy.
The House's 272-142 vote also sent the president a $555 billion catchall spending bill that combines the war money with money for 14 Cabinet departments.

Bush and his Senate GOP allies forced the Iraq money upon anti-war Democrats as the price for permitting the year-end budget deal to pass and be signed. But other Democrats were eager to avoid being seen as not supporting troops who are in harm's way — and avoid weeks of bashing by Bush for failing to provide that money.
"This is a blank check," complained Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war.

Steny and Rahmbo have their wish - Iraq is officially no longer a campaign issue for 2008.

Personally, I will not be working to elect Dems in Congress this cycle. It is obvious that the only office that matters now for ending the war is the Presidency.

Rubber Stamp Democrats. Pelosi and Reid are now on my ignore list. You will not be hearing about them from me anymore.

< Obama's Important Advantage: The Media | Huckabee's Weight Loss >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

It's Official: Dems Co-Own The Iraq Debacle | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What makes it official now (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:55:55 PM EST

that wasn't true in the Spring?

Funding issues are done for the Bush Presidency (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:57:52 PM EST

on Iraq.

Nothing left to fight about.


You intend to say nothing (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:59:54 PM EST

the next time he asks for $100B?


When will that happen? (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:45:32 PM EST

Maybe not Bush (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Lora on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:02:27 PM EST

Chances are good that the next president will be asking for big money to fund the Iraq mess in one way or another.


My guess: June (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:57:47 PM EST

Right before the conventions.


Bingo (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:03:09 PM EST

And? What do you expect to happen?

This was the last chance until 2009.


: Not worth the effort, you think? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:42:38 PM EST

I'm not inclined to be that easy on the Democrats.

Memorial Day weekend. (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:44:24 PM EST

That's what happened in 2007.


Not going to happen (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Lora on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:56:57 PM EST

It is obvious that the only office that matters now for ending the war is the Presidency.

What's the matter with Congress? Why are they "endorsing endless war?"

Disappointing, but expected (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by DA in LA on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:19:53 PM EST

I've totally washed by hands of this crowd.

Really, really pathetic display of governing. I will only vote for Dems at the state level this time around. At this point the Democratic party has to earn my vote back and they are far, far away.

I'm a liberal, which means there is no major party for me. The Dems have made that point loud and clear. So, I will not vote for them - even if Huckabee is the republican candidate. I'm tired. I'm done. It's not just this vote, but an accumulation.

I guess I'm off to the Green Party.

Uh Huh (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by rdandrea on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:31:22 PM EST

"You will not be hearing about them from me anymore"

Right. As if you can help yourself.

Make the democrats defend their vote. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Saul on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:34:30 PM EST

Has anyone polled the deomocrats that won in 06 because they opposed the war to see how many of these democrats voted for the continuation of funding of the war and if they did vote to fund the war ask them also why did you vote this way when the only reason you won in 06 was because you opposed the war and you were on the same page with the majority of the americans who also opposed the war. I would like to see the results.

: Simple question: (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Lora on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:28:22 PM EST

"Since winning the election, what have you done to end the war in Iraq?"

: So would I. (none / 0) (#18)
by Lora on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:26:36 PM EST

Let's find out what they've done.

Kudos to Herb Kohl. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Ben Masel on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:57:54 PM EST

Yep. They co-signed the original blank check, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Geekesque on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:39:45 AM EST

and have made good on their original promise.

This is the last bite at the apple. Even if there is another funding vote in late summer, so what? Bush can shovel around funds for the remaining 5 months.

The only thing that could make this more disillusioning is to have a Presidential matchup of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, wherein each tries to adopt the other's position.

: that would be (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by illissius on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:39:43 AM EST

hilariously depressing.

Cost of Retaliation to 9/11/2001 Attacks (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by billengelke on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 01:16:13 PM EST

As of December 20th, 2007

Total World Population = 6.77 billion people
Divided by 19 total people effectively attacking USA - 9/11/2001
1 of 356,315,789 people considered effective threat to USA (worldwide)
303,636,444 total USA population -vs- 1 of 356,315,789
0.85 people estimated as effective threat to USA (domestic)

Essence:

The wars in Afghanistan & Iraq have been & are being conducted based upon the premise that the USA is under sustained ongoing significant terrorist threats, both foreign & domestic.

Total Domestic Casualties - 9/11/2001 Attack = 2,973 people

Total American deaths - Iraq War - 3,895
Total Non-Fatal American Casualties - 24,965 from hostile actions
25,406 from non-hostile activities = 50,371 Total American casualties
Total American lives exhausted in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack - Iraq = 50,371

Total American deaths - Afghanistan War - 398
Total Non-Fatal American Casualties - 1,840
Total American lives exhausted in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack - Afghanistan = 2,238

Total Casualties Iraq/Afghanistan wars in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack - 52,609

Total American lives exhausted per victim of 9/11/2001 attack in Iraq/Afghanistan = 18

For each victim of the 9/11/2001 attack, 18 Americans either lost their lives or were permanently disabled in retaliation to the attack bringing the total of American Casualties as a result of the 9/11/2001 attack to 55,582
of which 52,609 casualties were a direct effect of the US retaliation led by President Bush & Vice-President Cheney with a consistent policy approval rating of less than 40% by the American People.

Revision - Statistical (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by billengelke on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:29:12 PM EST

54,266 Total American Lives Exhausted in Retaliation to 9/11/2001 Attack - Iraq

56,504 Total Casualties Iraq/Afghanistan wars in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack

19 Total American lives exhausted per victim of 9/11/2001 attack in Iraq/Afghanistan

For each victim of the 9/11/2001 attack, 19 Americans either lost their lives or were permanently disabled in retaliation to the attack bringing the total of American Casualties as a result of the 9/11/2001 attack to 59,477 of which 56,504 casualties were a direct effect of the US retaliation led by President Bush & Vice-President Cheney with a average policy approval rating of less than 40% by the American People over the wars durations to this time, December, 2007.


: So your theory (1.00 / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:41:52 PM EST

is that the US should do nothing until all 300 million of us are dead??
You know, you couldn't make this stuff up

Which Dem. primary candidate do you (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:13:14 PM EST

anticipate would do the most to extract the U.S. from Iraq the fastest if elected? Any why?

None of these: (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:44:28 PM EST

The troop-withdrawal amendment, offered by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), failed on a 24 to 71 vote. None of the four Democrats running for president -- Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) -- returned from the campaign trail for the vote, which failed for the third time this year to clear a 60-vote hurdle imposed by Republicans.

probably Richardson. (none / 0) (#5)
by illissius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:21:07 PM EST

Kucinich (none / 0) (#11)
by chemoelectric on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:18:43 PM EST

Kucinich is relatively impervious to people telling him he "can't" do what he plans to do, going all the way back to when he refused to let Cleveland be blackmailed and instead let the city go into default.


: Tied (none / 0) (#21)
by Ben Masel on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:56:21 PM EST

with Gravel and Paul.

they all should be primaried. hopefully (none / 0) (#15)
by seabos84 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:35:13 PM EST

we'll at least be able to gather around 10 or 50 and get rid of them.

but - you right on 1 thing

I will do NOTHING for any federal dems, except edwards if he makes it.

rmm.

They are effectively one party now. (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 01:01:32 AM EST