home

The Fallacy Of Implied Constraint

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:18:26 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

My old Kossack friend Kid Oakland uses my analysis of the Iraq Supplemental Funding bill and turns in a very nifty piece of political analysis:

. . . Nancy Pelosi, in my view, is banking on the "political" aspects of this process. ie. Speaker Pelosi, in using language counting on "the courts," really is implying the "court of public opinion." She must be thinking that whatever Bush's obligation to follow the framework of the Iraq bill, if he does not follow the language that Congress provides him, the GOP will be under such enormous political pressure in the court of public opinion that the GOP will cave. That, in a sense, was the bottom line upshot of the blogger's conference call. There was an interesting moment, which I did not mention in that MyDD piece, in which Speaker Pelosi talked about how, at the time of the outset of the war in Afghanistan the the Presient and the GOP very much did not want a bill from Congress. They felt that the President had all the authority he needed. Congressional Democrats insisted on getting a bill because having some bill, any bill, implied some constraint on the President's authority. If that is the mindset here, a mindset of "implied constraint" then it is critical we put pressure on the Democrats in Congress to go beyond that view. Implied constraint on this President does not cut it. Implied constraint is NOT what the voters voted for in 2006.

The inadequacy of implied constraint. Wonderfully phrased by Kid O. That gets to the heart of it. Bush does not give a fig about "implied constraint." It will take more. It will take the NOT spending power.

< Sopranos Final Season: Episode 81 "Chasing It" | Citizen Stengel Hires Hack Halperin >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Fallacy Of Implied Constraint | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    just came from there. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:58:59 AM EST
    it amazes me that there are still naysayers who doubt this course, but i can feel a groundswell building.  great teamwork by you and ko, however it evolved.

    Yes, I was just going to comment on the (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:03:37 AM EST
    great blogger-comity.  Good show.

    BTW:  I inquired at DK of a CA Dem delegate who reported on the candidates' speeches if any candidate mentioned Reid-Feingold.  Still awaiting a response.

    Parent

    he sounded pretty frustrated from what i read (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:15:10 AM EST
    it's 2 am on the east coast and i hope the diary is still going strong in the morning.  i just stopped by because i've been working all night and thought i'd check in with the world.  i'm very glad i did. ko wrote another good one last night.  i think he's on a roll.  good will come of this.

    Parent
    Complicated (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by chemoelectric on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:36:55 AM EST
    The situation is complicated from Pelosi's vantage point, because it's a big House and the Democratic Party is a Big Tent, not Pelosi's tent or any other Democrat's tent. Or, as someone else very wisely put it, I don't remember who, the Democratic Party is a political party, not the anti-war movement.

    Let's just keep the pressure up while realizing that Nancy Pelosi is not a leader of the anti-war movement, even if she herself sees ending the war as paramount.

    I would repeat, though, I think the defunding-the-occupation plan is not as sure a bet as has been suggested. These guys would let the soldiers scrounge for food, if necessary. In fact, they already are doing so, from what I understand. That's why I prefer my plan, which is not only to defund the occupation, but also to drive Bush more and more into his deranged state, so he and Cheney can be forced out of office by popular pressure; we make the pain worse but quicker this way, and also get some insurance against future popular tolerance of a severely psychiatrically ill chief executive.

    (The doctors who examine him are doing a grave disservice by refraining from diagnosing the man, although one can imagine what would happen to a military doctor who declared the Leader mentally ill.)

    Then you have not read me very well (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:42:44 AM EST
    Leaders lead, not herd.

    A LEADER thinks, formulates and carries out a plan.

    The plan, for policy, political, and MORAL reasons, should be NOT funding the war after a date certain.

    Your comment seems utterly removed from the process I have gone through and described on this issue for the past 4 months.

    Frankly, it annoys and frustrates me no end.

    Please try to read what I havbe written before engaging in such condescension as that comment.

    It is very much NOT appreciated by me.

    Parent

    But we don't have the votes. (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:24:39 AM EST
    Isn't that what the leadership was saying?  Isn't this simply another way of saying we are succumbing to the varied interests of the Big Tent?  Is your point is that Pelosi is not demonstrating leadership?  Besides which specific Republican politicians are supposed to be subject to this implied political pressure?

    Parent
    Arrrrrgh! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:31:38 AM EST
    Until you figure out why "we don't have the votes" is an utterly inappropriate comment in THIS thread,, I won't answer your other question.

    Parent
    Huh. Not just inappropriate but utterly... (none / 0) (#12)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:50:00 AM EST
    inappropriate?  Okay, it's your diary.

    Parent
    P.S.: It's all about the votes. n/t (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:51:40 AM EST


    Parent
    Do you understand how defunding works? n/t (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:56:07 AM EST


    Parent
    It would take a "mutiny". (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:06:07 AM EST
    A mutiny of do-nothings.

    Parent
    Noooooo (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    It would not. Indeed, NOT funding s by far the most palatable of the political options. Not funding on a date certain a year out is not as difficult politically.

    Parent
    You get Webb to support Reid/Feingold, and... (none / 0) (#21)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    I'd say it's doable now.

    Parent
    Good (3.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:27:26 AM EST
    Getting Webb is doable.

    Getting Republicans is not.

    Parent

    Without Webb Reid/Feingold is going nowhere... (none / 0) (#38)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    IMHO.  I agree with you on Repub support with possibly a couple exceptions.  

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:53:03 AM EST
    If I understand the process correctly, I think, at least for the House, it would take only the Speaker not referring a funding bill introduced by any rep to committee:
    Any Member, Delegate or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico in the House of Representatives may introduce a bill at any time while the House is in session...
    ...
    The title is entered in the Journal and printed in the Congressional Record, thus preserving the purpose of the custom. The bill is assigned its legislative number by the Clerk. The bill is then referred as required by the rules of the House to the appropriate committee or committees by the Speaker, the Member elected by the Members to be the Presiding Officer of the House, with the assistance of the Parliamentarian.
    Thomas: V. Introduction and Referral to Committee

    Can someone explain the Senate process?

    Parent

    Speaker Pelosi is going to do this? n/t (none / 0) (#22)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:56:58 AM EST


    Parent
    That is the essence of the idea of defunding (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:58:11 AM EST


    Parent
    Speaker Pelosi is going to do this? (none / 0) (#26)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:59:52 AM EST
    I don't think so.

    Parent
    Override a veto? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    a veto? I don't think so.

    How many members need to support Pelosi so that she does this in APRIL 2008?

    After having announced NOW, that on a date certain, there will be no funding.

    Frankly, you are not thinking this through.

    If your goal is to pretend to try and end the Debacle, your thinking is sound. If it is to actually have a chance to end it, then it is not.

    Parent

    What kind of a question is that? (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:09:24 AM EST


    Parent
    The White House must know (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:40:48 AM EST
    that defunding is really easy. The problem is that, on the left, people who should be agitating for that have become obsessed with the wet dream of impeachment, which will never happen.

    I really detest the impeachment talk (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    If we can't do not funding, how in the world are we going to do impeachment?

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:11:45 AM EST
    In the back of my mind I've been thinking that Impeachment : Democrats :: Overturning Roe : Republicans.

    Do you think Obama actually believes his "one signature away" and "16 votes away" sthick?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:26:15 AM EST


    Parent
    I agree, BUT... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:09:42 PM EST
    ...you have to stop and think for a second, about what, in reality, is more politically difficult in the minds of a pol: being perceived (wrongly or rightly, it doesn't matter) as cutting off the troops and making them go without food and necessities OR go after a wildly unpopular president or V.P.?

    In the actual scheme of political psychology here, the impeachment talk is less risky or wild than the defunding talk, in fact it "makes more sense" in the context of our actual history.  Pols have been impeached before, while defunding, as you have so expertly laid it out, has not even been attempted.

    You are being imaginative, while it is much easier for many other people to fall back on the tired and old and comfortable language of impeachment.

    Or my name ain't Nathan Arizona!

    Parent

    spot on (none / 0) (#45)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 08:36:55 PM EST
    had a discussion on these lines at an impeachment action this weekend.  it was attended by people mostly 40 and older. they lived through watergate and see the viability of impeachment.  the believe it will come from the people.  they do not trust the dems in congress to do it for them and they do not trust the dems in congress to stand up enough to bush to defund, so they are basically taking matters into their own hands.  there is something to be said for that.

    Parent
    Due respect (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:34:56 PM EST
    That makes no sense.

    It is the Congress that does the impeaching.

    An d it take a hell of a lot more of them for impeachment than defunding.

    I have no patience for stupidity tonight.

    And that argument is totally stupid.

    Parent

    sadly in this political environment it does make (none / 0) (#50)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:44:09 PM EST
    sense.  the politicians in washington, and if vermont is any indication, and on the state level, with the exception of kucinich, will not move towards impeachment of their own initiative.  however, if pushed by their constituents, if they see the american population calling for it, then they will be more likely to listen and act.  that is  what i mean by coming from the people.  i will also say that this is how liz holztman is framing it.

    about it taking more to achieve impeachment than defunding i will not disagree. however, i do think that most people out there would find it more tenable to direct their dissatisfaction with the administration into impeachment than into something that could be (mis)construed as defunding the troops.  i agree with you that we should defund the occupation, but unfortunately the media buys the spin and most people are not savvy enough to see through it.

    Parent

    They will move to NOT funding (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:13:18 PM EST
    mcuh easier. The bar is lower for achieiving it.

    In this climate, with today;s GOP, it makes no sense whasoever. It is particularly stupid in today's climate.

    It is infuriatingly stupid.

    It makes me pull my hair out.

    I am stunned that you think it makes sense in any way.

    Parent

    Heh! (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:16:40 PM EST
    Heh
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:41:07 AM PST
    But cool it a bit.

    Let's not get nasty.

    >>> Link

    Parent
    GeorgeTenet (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:19:33 PM EST
    made me do it.

    He makes me see red.

    Parent

    Hah!!! (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:20:37 PM EST
    You too??? ;-)

    Parent
    He has a congenital problem. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:21:22 PM EST
    His first name.

    Parent
    easy on the hair (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:43:17 PM EST
    i never said it made sense.  i am describing people's feelings and reactions.  if people were thinking rationally, bushco wouldn't be in office to begin with.  i've had too many arguments with people about this war to think that they come to their opinions rationally or, god forbid, by educating themselves.

    Parent
    case in point (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:56:54 PM EST
    I think most people are savvy enough. I be very careful about misunderestimating the average person. Bush and the republicans have treated them with the insulting assumption that they are too stupid to see through the lies for a long time. Look where it's got them. In the toilet in approval ratings.

    Defunding The Iraq War Is Supporting The Troops
    You Can't Hurt a Troop By Defunding a War
    By David Swanson

    71% disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq. Soon they'll get sick of paying for it too.

    Parent

    edger i wish i could share your optimism. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:03:28 PM EST
    i so hope you are right.

    Parent
    Me too. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:07:46 PM EST
    I think I am.

    Parent
    Misunderestimating (none / 0) (#77)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:16:10 AM EST
    Have a look at the Pew Report on Public Knowledge of Current Affairs and tell me you're still optimistic.

    Most people are still getting most of their news from TV - especially morning news shows, Fox, and local news - and other forms of old media, and they're overall less informed than they were 20 years ago.


                          Percent who
                            regularly
                       watch/read/listen

    Local TV news                 71
    Local daily newspaper         54
    Network evening news          46
    Fox News Channel              43
    CNN                           39
    Network morning shows         34
    National Public Radio         28
    News from Google, Yahoo       25
    News magazines                23
    TV news websites              22
    O'Reilly Factor               17
    Daily Show, Colbert Report    16
    NewsHour with Jim Lehrer      14
    Major newspaper websites      12
    Online news discussion blogs  11
    Rush Limbaugh's radio show     8

    Parent

    Optimism is my nature (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 02:08:11 AM EST
    Pew Research:
    liberal progressives as a group are beating the rest of 'em, hands down


    Parent
    Ande if that is where ::most:: (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 02:12:29 AM EST
    get their news, then those organizations are doing a great job. I hope they keep doing it. ;-)

    Parent
    The progressive blogs are a bubble (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 01, 2007 at 01:49:22 PM EST
    where people are hyper-informed. I wouldn't read anything substantial into the change showing in the opinion polls. Suddenly it's become OK to express loathing for Bush on TV, so the misgivings of the past six years are coming out. Whether that translates into support for drastic actions like impeachment or defunding - well, all I'd suggest is that the case hasn't been made broadly for them yet, in a way that gets through to people who are getting their news from morning TV news.

    Parent
    Defunding does none of those things (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:00:04 PM EST
    being perceived (wrongly or rightly, it doesn't matter) as cutting off the troops and making them go without food and necessities could only happen if the WH and the GOP are allowed to monopolize messaging to the public and allowed to define terms of debate with lies.

    They have the corporate media, admittedly, but really when you look at it, it isn't working for them and hasn't done them a damn bit of good. If it had then we I think we wouldn't see this.

    Or this:
    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

      Approve  Disapprove  Unsure  

      24%      71%          5%

    People talking to each other, and the blogs, helps to counteract the media. There is no other source of info for people to have used to so completely reject bushco.

    I think slowly the democrats in the house and the senate are starting to see that. Too slowly for me and for most here, but it's happening.

    Parent

    i agree, defunding doesn't do this, but perception (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:10:09 PM EST
    by the masses is another story.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:29:11 PM EST
    And the rethugs will use the media to max effect to keep people befuddled. The point I guess I was trying to make is that it hasn't worked. It's drastically slowed down people seeing past the lies since 2000, but in the end it has not worked.

     I'm beginning to think that there is enough of a critical mass of opposition to bushco that it won't take as long for people to learn about defunding as it did for them to realize what bushco really is. It's still going to take time. But it is happening.  

    People like Big Tent writing constantly, every day, all day are making sure it happens. I wish I could keep up with him - I've lost my job over all the blogging I do - I'm probably not the only one - and I'm sure there are many who feel ending the debacle and the reign of idiocy and lies in the world is more important than anything else.

    The rethugs are simply lying losers - they're cornered now like rabid animals and dangerous - they'll fight to the end - but they are still losers.

    Parent

    I so hope you are right. (none / 0) (#51)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    I'm beginning to think that there is enough of a critical mass of opposition to bushco that it won't take as long for people to learn about defunding as it did for them to realize what bushco really is. It's still going to take time. But it is happening.
     

    But it scares the crap out of me when I see things like the recent Supreme Court decision on "partial birth abortions" and the planting of Regent U types through the DOJ.  It has taken/is taking way too long for the average American to wake up.  It frightens me even more to think about what it might take for a mass awakening and what could happen between now and then.  Time is not on our side.

    Parent

    I sympathize (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:59:31 PM EST
    But I think it is happening faster and faster with each passing day now. I guess I have something that scares the crap out of rethugs. Faith. In people. I think a lot of people have that.

    Parent
    Manuel Valenzuela (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:06:48 PM EST
    The Inevitable Triumph of Progressive Thought
    Human progress is as present as night and day, an omnipotent and omnipresent force that cannot and has never been defeated. Many interests have tried to halt this unstoppable momentum, only to realize that the greatness of humanity pushes us forward as a species. It may be contained for a small time, yet over and over again progress continues its unrelenting drive onward, toward greater liberalism and independence of thought, toward increased humanism, education and world concern.



    Parent
    The last paragraph (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:26:12 PM EST
    In progress can we see history, and in history can we see progress. It is inevitable, as real as the moon and stars, a stalwart energy that, like all forms of evolution, leads to betterment. So do not fear the enemies of change, delusional in belief they remain, their cause is and has always been lost. Yet we must fight their attempts, for progress needs assistance in defeating their overzealous ignorance and growing power. We must not cave in, we must not relent, we must wage battle, for in the end, history and its truths are with us.


    Parent
    I dunno Edger (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:34:32 PM EST
    Progress is a very slippery idea. Do you think that we have progressed? Unleashed a horrible war in Iraq for petty reasons? Torture, concentration camps?

    Need I go on?

    Yes I do believe that things change, but progress seems like a self congratulatory illusion.

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:44:52 PM EST
    I notice that the rethugs seem to be trying to move us back to the dark ages........ ;-)

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:53:38 PM EST
    ot, but very much about progress, i recommend an excellent diary by peaches about the honeybees as a good example of what progress can lead to.  not as graphic as torture and concentration camps, but just as lethal.

    Parent
    There is a link at the bottom of diaries (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:56:48 PM EST
    Who has Recommended This Diary ?

    I was first. Sorry! ;-)

    Parent

    great minds and all that (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:58:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Speak for yourself ;-) (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:02:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Patriot Daily also (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:01:22 PM EST
    wrote some very good diaries. Link.

    Good night.

    Parent

    Logical (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:51:21 PM EST
    Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical,
    Liberal, fanatical, criminal.
    Song

    Parent
    rousing and noble thoughts. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:57:04 PM EST
    i share squeaky's hesitation on progress, but i do appreciate the inspiration.  thanks for sharing.

    Parent
    K/O goes on in the main point of his post to (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:41:15 AM EST
    remark that:
    The constitutional battle between Congress and the President is the expression of this more fundamental disconnect...the President versus the people...only to the extent that the Democratic majorities make it stick with the force of law. Congress must stand up for the will of the voters in the elections of 2006. Congress must call this President's Constitutional bluff.
    He nails the issue head on here. If there is NO law appropriating money to continue the occupation, anything Bush does other than winding it up is illegal.

    "make it stick with the force of law" And back it up with serious threat of impeachment, and criminal charges if possible.

    "Implied constraint", in my view, is a meaningless phrase. Where Pelosi gets the idea that it has any force other than begging Bush to "please, Mr. President - be nice and don't fight us on this" is beyond me.

    It's time to use the biggest stick she has, and forget dangling carrots that Bush just flips the finger at.

    And it's time for her to realize that if she doesn't, as Big Tent describes, "[think, formulate and carry out] a plan", that stick will be used on her and Democrats next year.

    eddger (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:03:37 PM EST
    Make it stick with force of law?

    And how do you think that can be done??

    Bush has every right to veto any bill brought before him. He doesn't need a reason.

    Reid knows that. Pedlosi knows that.

    Unfortunately for those suffering from BDS, they can't quite make the connection.

    Parent

    You need to reread E's comment (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:07:03 PM EST
    You missed his key point.

    See if you can spot it.

    Parent

    Big Tent (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:11:23 AM EST
    Oh, I saw it, just didn't think it worth noting...

    Do your really think the Demos will take that course?

    No money for the troops??

    As you said in another comment

    Hahahahahahah

    Parent

    It was good (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:30:50 AM EST
    k/o's been writing good stuff the past couple of weeks.  And I'm glad to see the discussion crossing blog lines.

    Big Tent (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:57:08 AM EST
    I know you don't like pushing impeachment. In my comment above I meant don't fund, than use impeachment threats as the stick to force compliance and disincentivize Bush from cooking books to find money, and keeping the troops there.

    If we can;t NOt fund (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:07:44 AM EST
    What chance is there for impeachment?

    Let's end the Debacle. Let's do all we can to push forward the policies that can succeed in that.

    Parent

    I agree, completely. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    Do that first.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:21:38 AM EST
    Defund first. Impeach later. Defunding saves lives. Impeachment does not.

    I wish that people would worry less (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:20:39 PM EST
    about troops not eating when it comes to defunding.  We have MRE's stockpiled for the troops until hot places freeze over.  Plenty of bullets stockpiled, lots of body armor finally made now too it is just in the process of getting there.  Most of the things that would be immediately affected have to do with contractors.  Your soldiers are living through hell right now, it isn't as if through defunding you are somehow really making their lives miserable.  Their lives are miserable right now on the ground in Iraq!  I would gladly go without whatever my family would go have to go without through defunding if it brought the soldiers home. There is no sacrifice that might come my way that I wouldn't carry proudly on my shoulders to bring our troops home, NONE!  I have already made all the hard sacrifices, supported soldiers in the middle of a war made up of lies and millionaire greed.  Had a husband come home with some traumas that we had to address, and we did it, we didn't wait for the Army to do it.  Whatever dark spooky sacrifices plague anyone's mind forget about it.  If bringing the troops home is where you are all going with this any sacrifices made on my part are all down hill from here and I'm coasting!

    Won't happen anyway (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:02:59 PM EST
    Defunding won't affect the troops. When Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he's lying and fearmongering.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 3) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:15:54 PM EST
     
    I wish that people would worry less ...
    about troops not eating when it comes to defunding.  We have MRE's stockpiled for the troops until hot places freeze over.

    There are some of us who would say that MRE's are not exactly eating..of course I admit that my experience is more in line with C ration peaches and cookies canned in 1945... Perhaps Tracy, being "MilitaryTracy" has lived on MRE's long enough to assure us thet are the creme de la creme of cusine..

    But that's just us folks who actually support the troops.

    BTW - Am I the only one to note that it is always the ones who claim to support the troops that are willing to let the troops bear the brunt of their "moral" positions??

    Parent

    How dare you? (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:23:17 PM EST
    Tracy's husband is in Iraq.

    How dare you question the sacrifice her family is making?

    Are you really this despicable Jim?

    Don't ever insult a woman whose husband is putting his life on the line for your idiotic Debacle again.

    You are despicable.

    Parent

    You are trying to spint what Tracy said into (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:48:19 AM EST
    another meaning altogether from hers. Big Tent is right. You are despicablle.

    And you've just confirmed what I said the other day.

    If you had any conscience or empathy circuits left you would be ashamed of yourself, ppj.

    Revolting-ness is all you have left.

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:43:54 AM EST
    For a person who just was shown, again, that they won't apologize for wrongfully calling someone a liar, then you certainly are an unusual spokesman about character, etc.

    And I will again quote what I understand to be your guidelines in commenting. If I misunderstand them, please correct me.

    tp://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/1/25/25427/2495For the record (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:17:12 PM EST ......

    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    You are alos invited to read my comments to Big Tent.

    Parent

    Thanks Jim (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:50:52 AM EST
    You saved me from having to remind you.

    By being as revolting as possible you're burying the rethugs and Bush, and yourself, faster than anything I or anyone else can do.

    Keep up the good work...

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:30:21 AM EST
    Here's some more from you that defines your guidelines on free speech and dissent...

    First of all, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM EST

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    (Emphasis mine.)

    You don't want a debate. You want an echo chamber.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    I want to marginalize and get rid of people like you. Then reasonable people can debate without being diverted by revolting psychotics.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:37:14 PM EST
    Edger wrote:

    I want to marginalize and get rid of people like you. Then reasonable people can debate without being diverted by revolting psychotics

    The problem is, who will be the next person you want to get rid of because they disagree with you?

    And speaking of psychotics:

    Posted by edger at September 3, 2005 01:04 PM

    This may get me kicked off this site, and I'll probably regret saying this later, but here goes...

    Jim... you know how to use a gun? Bullets are cheap, and plentiful, you can get lots of 'em almost anywhere if you are out of 'em...

    You only need one, though...



    Parent
    Buy (none / 0) (#91)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:40:24 PM EST
    Bullets

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Nope, aint gonna happen. My purpose in life remains to point out how unreasonable your positions are, and how you would like to remove all who disagree with you.

    Reminds me of some governments that were, at one time, in other countries. The USSR and Germany come immedately to mind.

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:45:05 PM EST
    There were revolting psychotics in those countries too.

    They're all gone now. Reasonable people marginalized and got rid of them, finally.

    For them there is nothing left, and no way to justify their actions, either. Like for you and the rethugs, for them it's all over.

    Parent

    He is home now but he's going back (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 01:16:41 PM EST
    in October.  I'm pretty sure that my husband would tell Jim that there isn't anything pretty in Iraq and a lot of MRE's get eaten lately because that is what you eat when things are in chaos or you are on a mission with only FARP stops.  I know why Jim likes to give me heck, I'm not playing by the old military spouse rules and I state my mind and where Iraq is concerned that is a hard thing to fight against.  Thanks for defending me though BTD, it means a lot to me that you are a Democrat who also respects that the U.S. needs a military and you aren't afraid of the responsibility that goes with that.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 02:22:47 PM EST
    You know, I have no doubt that things are not pretty in Iraq, and I understand meals thrown together, etc. I have no idea why anyone would expect otherwise.

    And I don't disagree with you because you state your mind, as I indicated above, that's your right. It is Big Tent and Edger who want to shut people off, not me.

    Nope. I disagree with you because I think you are wrong. That you play the personal card is your business and I don't want to pry.

    As for the Left "defending" the troops, I just shake my head. If you don't understand that the political turmoil in the US is aiding the enemy in Iraq and hurting the troops, there is nothing I can say except this. It is Tracy. It really and truly is.

    The sad thing in this is that, by and large, the Left doesn't care about the military. This is about political power, nothing else. You, and many others who have no particular agenda besides the war.... if you have one I haven't seen it... are being used.

    Parent

    You need to read before engaging. (1.00 / 2) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:31:52 AM EST
    Did you miss the quote? Tracy wrote:

       

    I wish that people would worry less ...
        about troops not eating when it comes to defunding.  We have MRE's stockpiled for the troops until hot places freeze over.

    Do you understand that MRE's are field rations? Why would anyone want the troops to have to survive on them because they want to use the troops as political hostages??


    Yeah. I thought her wanting the troops to eat MRE's was pretty dspicable.

    Now. I haven't read all of her comments. I don't read many of yours so she may have stated that her husband is in Iraq in one of your threads. But I have not seen where she has stated that her husband is in Iraq.

    If he is, I wish him good luck and God's protection.

    But the fact that he is there does not give her any special right to spout political nonsense and not have it commented on.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    HOw despicable of you (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:43:22 AM EST
    You wrote:

    "But that's just us folks who actually support the troops.

    BTW - Am I the only one to note that it is always the ones who claim to support the troops that are willing to let the troops bear the brunt of their "moral" positions??"

    To Tracy!

    I have nop use for you. Personally, if it was my decision, you would be banned from this blog for not apologizing for your horrible remark to a woman whose husband serves in Iraq.

    That you do not have the decency to do that tells me all I need to know about you.

    I will not engage you again.

    Parent

    Big Tent (1.00 / 2) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:37:36 AM EST
    Tracy has regularly commented on this blog that she is anti-war.

    That is her right, no one has tried to shut her up, no one has demanded that she apologize. No one has tried to censor her because of her views or statements.

    They have and will continue to be challenged.

    You on the other hand:

    Personally, if it was my decision, you would be banned from this blog for not apologizing for your horrible remark to a woman whose husband serves in Iraq.

    That is a clear and open statement of your belief in censorship of those who disagree with you. I find it typical of many on the Left, and to be fair, also on the Right. But more so on the Left by a considerable margin. What I particularly like about TalkLeft, and its owner, is that you don't have to agree.

    To revisit the "serves in Iraq" comment, I again say I would like for Tracy to personally confirm that, just out of curiousity. I repeat that if her husband does, I wish him good luck and God's protection.

    To take the philsophy that your position in this matter that service in the military gives you special rights to its logical conclusion, then only those who have served, or had family who served, can comment on the WOT and the battle in Iraq.

    I wonder how many who regularly comment on TalkLeft will have to find other pastures.

    If that should happen, I would qualify in all respects, including the pain of losing two personal friends.

    Have a good day.

    Parent

    No one expects you to get it. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:55:45 AM EST


    Parent
    et al (1.80 / 5) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:46:17 AM EST
    The problem with all of this is that our country is not a Parlimentary Democracy.

    The President is elected for a fixed term, and while the Congress can pass various laws, the two thirds majority and the fillibuster are both designed to stop overheated reactions to various situations.

    The congress can obviously not pass any bill, but the rub is that puts the onus directly on the Demos.

    In this case the Demos could pass NO bill without the support of the so-called "blue dog" Demos. To get their support they had to load the bill up with pork, proving that the Demos anti-war position is like the Platte river.. A mile wide and an inch deep.

    If the Demos/Left can elect an anti-war President, not just a Demo, they can do something. That would be spring of '09.

    political advice from ppj ... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:18:18 AM EST
    ... is like abstinence advice from 'Randy' Tobias.

    To get their support they had to load the bill up with pork, proving that the Demos anti-war position is like the Platte river.
    There is less 'pork' than bush and the rethugs have put in every year before:
    The president's own request last year for emergency war spending included $20 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, $2.3 billion for bird flu preparations, and $2 billion to fortify the border with Mexico and pay for his effort to send National Guardsmen to the southern frontier.

    The Republican-controlled Senate tried to load the 2006 bill with $4 billion for agricultural subsidies, $1.1 billion for the Gulf Coast fishing industry, $594 million for highway projects unrelated to Hurricane Katrina, and $700 million for rerouting a rail line in Mississippi.

    Mainly it's a farce that the funding is considered 'supplemental.' bush et al have been afraid to put the money in the regular budget.

    Parent

    I don't think the Dem majority needs all... (none / 0) (#27)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:05:51 AM EST
    the Blue Dogs to pass legislation.  But they would need them to override a veto or for any other supermajority requirement.

    Parent
    Override a veto? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:08:13 AM EST
    You must be joking.

    Parent
    Speaking generally only. (none / 0) (#41)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    No way there is an override if President Bush vetoes the supplemental bill.  

    Parent
    So, here's the million dollar question: (none / 0) (#4)
    by Eternal Hope on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:24:44 AM EST
    Which candidate's stance on Iraq is the one that is the most compatible with Reid/Feingold?

    Such a soft ball for BTD. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:27:32 AM EST
    All together now:  Dodd.

    Parent
    errr. :::THEN use::: (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:57:30 AM EST


    What is Webb's problem? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:54:10 AM EST


    I think it has to do with soldiers being (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    in combat and hearing that Congress doesn't care about them and believing that defunding could possibly harm them or that Democrats are somehow against them.

    Parent
    The Fallacy Of Implied Constraint | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment