home

Why Is Ending The War Through Not Funding It Controversial?

Meteor Blades writes:

According to many, defunding isn’t just bad because it’s impossible, it’s a bad idea per se because the polls say most Americans don’t support it. And, they say, if too many elected Democrats do support it, they are going to screw up the party’s prospects for winning the Presidency and perhaps even retaining a majority in the Senate and House come 2008.

Where do these false memes come from? The first is obviously false. As of today, an Iraq Supplemental funding bill has not become law because President Bush vetoed the bill Congress passed. NOT funding is merely a function of not passing a bill, it does not require passage. Right now the Democratic Congress is grappling with a way to force an end date to the Iraq Debacle by means other than NOT funding it. Benchmarks, timelines, "short leashes," etc. are ways that, given a President less obstinate and incompetent and more respectful of the American People, would likely work. But the President IS George Bush.

The reason why I have concluded that announcing a date certain when the Iraq Debacle will NOT be funded is the only way to end it while Bush is President is precisely because Bush is President. He will not be stopped any other way. IF I am right, and this is the only way to end it, then why is the Reid-Feingold framework, which does not require passage of any law, controversial?

If I have said this before - the choice on Iraq for Congress are binary. You either give in to George Bush's obstinance and continue to fund the Iraq Debacle, or you stand up to him and use the power the Founders granted the Congress, the Spending Power, to overcome Bush's obstinance and end the Debacle.

Saying that you are for ending the Debacle but against exercising the only real power the Congress has to actually end it is unacceptable imo. That is abdicating the responsibility the Constitution grants the Congress regarding the war power. To me, it is THAT position that should be, not only controversial, but universally condemned.

If you are afraid to exercise the Constitutional power granted the Congress, then why are you in the Congress? This is a harsh assessment I know, but I think it is the reality.

In his analysis of the Iraq Supplemental, Kid Oakland wrote:

. . . 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. . . . 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.

Yesterday, I wrote:

We kept hearing about the need to "ratchet up the pressure" on Bush and the Republicans. I think it is clear now that the pressure needs to be placed on those segments of the Democratic Party that likes to talk a lot about ending the war but clearly has felt no pressure from its base to do what is necessary to end this catastrophic war.

Jim Webb told President Bush, Democrats would show the way, as did others. It is clear that Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Jack Reed, Carl Levin, et al, have no intention of leading on Iraq.

Yet again, as in 2006, it will require the base of the Democratic Party to lead its leaders. This vote today leaves no doubt what must be done by progressives, the Democratic grassroots and the Netroots. We must all take on those segments of our Party who do not want to end the war, but rather merely say they want to end the war.

The alternative is caving in to Bush and the continuation of the Iraq Debacle. Either Democrats in Congress end the Debacle, or it does not end. The choice is binary now. Bush has made his position clear. Democrats in Congress have not.

Democrats must respect the results of the 2006 Election and exercise their Constitutional power over making war once war is authorized, the Spending Power.

It is the right thing to do. But it is also the smart thing to do. As Peter Beinart noted:

The real danger for Democrats in the Iraq debate isn't that they'll oppose the war too aggressively; it's that they won't oppose it aggressively enough. ... As pollster Ruy Teixeira has noted, surveys in recent years show Democrats trailing the G.O.P. by more than 20 points when it comes to "know[ing] what they stand for." If the public doesn't like what you stand for, then you should probably adjust your views. But if the public doesn't believe you stand for anything, then you had better show them that you do. That's the problem the Democratic Party faces today. And the solution is to end the war in Iraq.

And the only way to end the war in Iraq while Bush is President is to NOT fund it after a date certain.

< Gonzo: Must Have Been A Different Illegal Surveillance Program | The Responsibility of A Nation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    But, but, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:58:06 AM EST
    didn't you hear about all of the "obstructionist Republicans" who are keeping Democrats from doing anything???

    >:o

    More seriously, it seems to me that the paramaters of what constitues being a "good Democrat" this Congress have been defined by Joe Lieberman. That is to say: it's been totally distorted. The logic seems to be that, because we can't get serious bipartisan support to stop funding, it either isn't possible or isn't worth doing. We need to kill the idea that "partisan" always equals "bad."

    Indeed (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:03:51 AM EST
    See my latest post.

    Parent
    The reason defunding (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    is the only PRACTICAL way of ending the war is that it's the only one within Dem hands alone - ie, it doesn't rely on cooperation of Republicans or Bush. Heck, as a strategy it doesn't even need a majority, or even a bill, just INACTION and the support of the leadership.

    However, there is a real argument to be made against it as a POLITICAL strategy. Those who oppose it think Americans just aren't ready yet to accept something this drastic. In fact, polls show a strong ambivalence on the question. People hate the war, and they don't trust Bush's conduct of it, but they're worried about what cutting off funding would mean and how it might be handled. With Bush in charge, that's not a piddling concern. And if funding is cut off and the aftermath of that is handled very badly by Bush, those who cut off the funding will be blamed maybe even more than him (especially considering the current state of political reporting and punditry which will surely push the WH line for them uncritically).

    I see the Dem "racheting" strategy as being pressure not on Bush or on the Republicans but on public opinion in order to make it safe for Dems from conservative regions to eventually vote to end the war (maybe by defunding) without Dems losing their majorities over it. Those conservative Dems didn't win on a promise to end the war but in spite of other Dems' promises to end it - they won primarily on a platform of fiscal responsibility and by saying as little as possible about the war except maybe that they'd conduct it less stupidly and with better fiscal oversight.

    You may disagree with this as a cynical use of troops' lives, but if this is the Dem political strategy it may even work. I wish I had enough faith in them at this point to think they even have a plan at all about anything.

    The problem is (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    the time interval before the defunding date requires the framework be announced in advance of the cutoff.

    What you aqre describing is an approach thaat leads nowhere.

    It is BAD political strategy.

    The public will not blame itself if the war is not ended.

    It will blame Dems for lacking spines.


    Parent

    The time interval is key for sure (none / 0) (#55)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:44:59 PM EST
    And time is very short. But the truth is they're in a very difficult spot. They don't have a clear majority, the clock is ticking, and a divided electorate is ready to hold them responsible whichever way they go. Undividing the electorate is also key.

    I think they're looking at those conflicted polls and acting in not unreasonable response to them - trying to navigate between the rock and the hard place of "losing their majority for being spineless" vs "losing their majority for making troops situation in Iraq even worse." Personally, I think they'd be much better off stepping up and taking leadership in a courageous manner the way someone like Feingold regularly does. It may get honest disagreement, but at least it earns respect, and that's the beginning for changing minds.

    But in any case, the role of the grass/netroots isn't to go along with any of this kind of strategizing - it's to push them to end the war, as loudly as possible, and thereby do our part to help move mass public opinion in our direction and so make it less risky for elected Dems to follow the expressed wishes of their base.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:26:20 PM EST
    help move mass public opinion in our direction and so make it less risky for elected Dems to follow the expressed wishes of their base.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:12:44 PM EST
    Those who oppose it think Americans just aren't ready yet to accept something this drastic. In fact, polls show a strong ambivalence on the question. People hate the war, and they don't trust Bush's conduct of it, but they're worried about what cutting off funding would mean and how it might be handled.

    They are misinformed. I might be wrong but I don't think people are that stupid.

    You may disagree with this as a cynical use of troops' lives, but if this is the Dem political strategy it may even work.

    Maybe. If the goal is a political one. But not if the goal is stopping the death. And not doing so, at least from my point of view, obviates a political goal and equates them with the rethugs.

    Parent

    The polls (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:49:19 PM EST
    that I've looked at show an undeniable ambivalence. People seem to be concerned about what will come after defunding - perhaps for the sake of the troops as hostages as well as for what will devolve in Iraq, the way the Bush WH will non-handle it.

    Parent
    The polls might (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:24:21 PM EST
    depending on the questions and how they are phrased.

    What comes after? There are multiple disinformation campaigns going on about that. The big one is 'terrorists will come to the US mainland': debunked - the reverse is true

    The second big one is defunding the occupation will hurt the troops: debunked - the reverse is true.

    Another is 'surrendering or losing would be catastrophe and cause the first one'. Easy to debunk. The US is not at war with Iraq. There will be no surrender to Iraq. Iraq is in civil war. Someone else's civil war CANNOT be won by occupying Iraq. Iraqis want US troops out. The attacks on US Troops are done with the goal of driving the US out.

    Another is 'we broke it - we can't just up and walk away'. Good point. Get the troops out. Pay restitution and compensation. Help Iraq by rebuilding the country's infrastructure (definitely a responsibilty there).

    And probably some smaller ones of less consequence.

    ALL of them are nothing but excuses to continue the occupation.

    Education campaigns are necessary to combat these, and to make sure people get that defunding means NOT funding, and that it is not taking away anything from anyone except Bush's ability to continue the occupation.

    Parent

    And there're probably some minor others I missed. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:07:10 PM EST
    I'm sure the trolls will remind me.

    Parent
    One more thing needed (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:32:02 PM EST
    is immediate and ruthless ridicule and rhetorical attacks on and credibility destruction and marginalization of rethug trolls who flock to divert and obfuscate and confuse on these points.

    They are part of the disinfo campaigns. They do not deserve to be given the time of day or treated as if they have 'another point of view as valid as any other' when they argue for more death.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#69)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:13:38 PM EST
    the "truth" as you point it out in your links is not what the polls say is where mass public opinion is at yet. There's still a ways to go.

    My point (in as much as I have one) was actually to emphasize something said to rebut geekesque in passing on another thread that I think can not be reiterated too often - that the role of the netroots is to push and agitate, not to be reasonable and support Dems in their comfort zone. It's part of changing the environment and over the long run will help make it less risky for Dems to act as we wish.

    Parent

    I agree completely. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:16:02 PM EST
    That's why I talked about educating.

    Parent
    ...and (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:48:00 AM EST
    putting the argument this way is acknowledging the reality of the situation. It doesn't just reject opponents of defunding by saying You're stupid, you're wrong, go away.

    Parent
    Especially with this. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:17:28 PM EST
    the role of the netroots is to push and agitate, not to be reasonable and support Dems in their comfort zone.


    Parent
    There's still a ways to go. Not far though. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:16:10 PM EST
    ABC's Terry McCarthy reports from Baghdad, "Americans living there say they're concerned both about the frequency and the accuracy of these attacks," adding that two Americans had recently been killed right outside the U.S. Embassy.
    Video: Green Zone hit by 64 attacks since surge began

    Parent
    Time to give up. (4.00 / 2) (#16)
    by lilybart on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:03:39 PM EST
    The only thing that people with a conscience about this grinding war can do now is GIVE UP.

    Call a press conference and tell the American people that it is not possible to make this president end this war. The congressional power to cut off funds was the best we could do. Until this president and his cronies are gone, nothing will change.

    It is up to the American people to tell us what they want---impeachement is the only way to end this war, or to even have a plan to bring this to a close. Tell us that's what  you want and we will impeach them.

    Agree with you (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:25:54 PM EST
    We need some press conferences spelling everything out for Americans real clear and real concise and posing questions that Bush needs to  answer in a public forum!

    Parent
    The American people want the Iraq (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:46:58 AM EST
    War brought to a close, if Bush is going to Veto everything sent to him that could eventually accomplish that how can the Democrats be responsible for him not funding Iraq.

    k/o is right I think (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:51:31 AM EST
    that "Implied constraint on this President does not cut it", and probably right in that Pelosi seems to be thinking that "the GOP will be under such enormous political pressure in the court of public opinion that the GOP will cave".

    IOW, Pelosi must think that "implied constraint" will work on Bush.

    When has it ever? When has he ever changed policy or course based on public opinion?

    Never. Not once since 2000, as far as I recall.

    If Pelosi stood up today, called a press conference and announced that "Mr. President, your occupation of Iraq will be funded until July 3 of this year AND NO FURTHER.  Mr.President, you have until July 4th to bring them home" she would have nearly the whole country behind her, and it might be the first time that "implied constraint" works on Bush.

    She has the power. If she will not use it, she is no more fit to be Speaker than Bush is to be President. I wonder what she accepted as payment for her soul.

    And Bush has made the 'date certain' now (none / 0) (#5)
    by fairleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    There's no way I support any Democrat who votes for the $95 Billion (50 weeks of quagmire!) when Harry Reid puts that bill before them in the next few days.

    Bush will have, I've read,, till July to get the troops out with the money he has. And that's completely on him: Congress tried to give him $124 Billion and he refused it. He also 'warned' that he would veto a short-term bill.

    If this messy confrontation gets us out of Iraq, well that's what the people want. And in 2008 they'll be very happy the Dems actually stood up to Bush and got the job done.


    just to respectfully add (none / 0) (#6)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    for consideration:

    one of the reasons why defunding is not supported by as many Dems as there should be is not really pointed out above.

    and i believe this reason that i'm about to give has not been fully discussed or adequately resolved by those who demand that Democrats end the war by using the power of the purse.

    It does, indeed, have an impact on the resources that are made available to the troops.

    there has been, of late, some very respected generals and admirals making advertisements ripping into the bush admin, generals who have now gone on record to say the worst thing that ever happened to american armed forces is the republican party.

    do we know how any of these generals feel about the defunding option?

    there has been one valid response to this reason why defunding is not a good idea.  we are establishing a date certain, and if bush steps over that date, then HE is the one defunding the troops, not democrats.

    well.  here's your two buck chuck analogy for the day.   it'll piss people off, but so be it.  it's a little like a kidnapper blaming the negotiator when the kidnapper ends up killing a hostage.  "i gave them a deadline," the hostage taker says to himself.  "it's not my fault if the cops can't do what i've asked in the time i gave them to do it."

    a nasty sort of analogy, and feel free to be disgusted by it.  the point is not to frame Defunders as hostage takers.  the point is i get the sense that there is a reliance on just saying so makes it so.  the american public outside of the blogosphere is not going to just believe bush wanted to defund the troops just because we said so.  they're going to, wether we like it or not, realize that the consequences of bush's failure to meet the deadline were IMPOSED on the troops by Democrats.

    this is just my opinion.  

    i'm not really trying to be that contentious.  but do think my opinion here is valid.  

    the question here is, has anyone been able to figure out that the defunding outlined in reid-feingold does not apply to troop preparedness, but is somehow able to cut off funds to the rest of the war, like occupation/rebuilding/reconstruction/nation building budget.  the gravy train for bush/cheney and their cronies.

    is this possible?  and is it worth discussing further?

    anyway, one can't just say "if the troops go without, then it's bush's fault for not meeting the deadline."  i think more thought has to be put into that facet of the discussion.

    mostly because i don't believe reid and feingold are in agreement on that issue.  although i might be wrong about that.   lets now remember that feingold did vote for the 87 billion, so i do believe that when it comes to providing for the troops feingold himself does accept his own sense of responsibility.

    i don't believe feingold was endorsing bush's policy in iraq at the time.

    so if everything else i've said above is set aside, the only other thing i could add is that someone who doesn't support defunding now is doing so for the same kinds of reasons feingold voted for the 87 billion, and they, as well, are NOT supporting bush's war.

    have we completely refuted the argument that defunding won't hurt the troops or are we just going to rely on framing/marketing tactics and hope the american people decides "right. it's bush's fault for the troops not getting what they need.  he had his chance to bring them home, and he didn't."?

    is there more work to be done here?


    This is absurd (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:05:54 AM EST
    You write:

    well.  here's your two buck chuck analogy for the day.   it'll piss people off, but so be it.  it's a little like a kidnapper blaming the negotiator when the kidnapper ends up killing a hostage.  "i gave them a deadline," the hostage taker says to himself.  "it's not my fault if the cops can't do what i've asked in the time i gave them to do it."

    a nasty sort of analogy, and feel free to be disgusted by it.  the point is not to frame Defunders as hostage takers.  the point is i get the sense that there is a reliance on just saying so makes it so.  the american public outside of the blogosphere is not going to just believe bush wanted to defund the troops just because we said so.  they're going to, wether we like it or not, realize that the consequences of bush's failure to meet the deadline were IMPOSED on the troops by Democrats.

    The Congress has Constitutional authority over the spending on this war. The Framers state so expressly. Bush has acknowledged it. He and Cheney and the GOP say to Dems if you really want to end the war, then use your Constitutional spendng power.

    Your argument is ignorant, as in lacking knowledge.

    You want a response to an uninformed argument.

    I think you need to read and learn more about the Constitution.

    And stop repeating GOP talking points.

    Parent

    actually (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:24:32 AM EST
    bush and cheney and other republicans telling dems that if they're serious about ending the war, then they must cut off funds, is one of the clues to me that it might not be such a good idea.

    i might not be a constitutional scholar, but i have concluded, for the most part, that republicans would advise dems to do things that will only hurt dems.

    they are, indeed, masters of the false choice.


    Parent

    I say Fooey (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:29:23 AM EST
    There are enough aides on hand to write bills that get the job done in a Constitutional way.  Everything is a bluff with these thugs, everything thusfar has been a bluff and I just can't bring myself to fear any longer.  I'm all feared out.

    Parent
    These guys keep people in office (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:31:06 AM EST
    that attempt to molest their constituents children and they are still in power.  I'm not sure how much I "fear" the American people getting angry with Dems doing what they voted them into office to do.

    Parent
    no dem who won in '06 (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:54:44 AM EST
    ran on defunding.

    not one.

    ok.  maybe a representative from vermont.

    the big senate pickups.  if they did go on record on the issue, most of them went on record to say they didn't support defunding.

    Parent

    My gawd (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:36:20 PM EST
    They ALL won on ENDING the war.

    Don't confuse the means with the ends.

    Parent

    What an amazing disconnect (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    It's just so obvious to me that I'm not the one trying to forge an inextricable link between the ends (ending the war) and one means of doing so (defunding).

    if your contention is that everyone who voted for a dem to end the war believes that defunding is the only way to go about it, then, yes.  my gawd.

    indeed, everything i have written here is founded on making a complete and utter distinction between the ends and the means.

    Parent

    What other means are there? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:15:31 PM EST
    Explain your plan for ending the Debacle if you please.

    Parent
    that changes the subject (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    but ok.

    i don't think troops will be disengaged from the civil war until a democrat takes hold of the executive branch.

    and even then anyone who thinks all troops will be removed for iraq, shouldn't listen to me about that, but the good governor from montana.

    bush is a madman.  you're right, he won't respond to pressure.  the problem is.  i don't believe he'll respond to defunding either.  

    which is why i keep pointing out that the key to pressure is to keep driving the wedge in the republican party.  or rather i have a half a mind to point out that he would SOONER respond to POLITICAL PRESSURE from within his own party than he would respond to a lack of funds.

    as it is though, just to be realistic, the trends dictate he'll ignore both.


    Parent

    Nuff said (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    i don't think troops will be disengaged from the civil war until a democrat takes hold of the executive branch.

    You accept that NOT funding after a date certain is the only way while Bush is President but you either think it is a bad move politically or unachievable because Democrats will not do it.

    Since you agree with me that Not funding after a date certain is the only way to do this, and you disagree with DOING IT, what is there left for us to discuss?

    The politics of it will get us no where.

    I think you and I have exhausted the subject.

    Parent

    i didn't agree to that (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    i said not funding after a certain date will be about as effective (possibly less) as anything else i could offer.


    Parent
    Offer something else (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:25:35 PM EST
    or the conversation is hard to continue.

    Parent
    I did (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:53:14 PM EST
    Wedge the Republican Party.

    Let them prevail upon Bush once a week to stop dragging them down with him.


    Parent

    It has been explained to you (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by andgarden on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:55:45 PM EST
    why this will not work. Try again.

    Parent
    And that explanation has been (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:00:30 PM EST
    Insufficient when I see repugs visitting the white house beggin him to stop.


    Parent
    "I have no plan" (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by fairleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:28:19 PM EST
    was all that was necessary.

    Parent
    I described (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:53:43 PM EST
    a plan.

    Parent
    I'm all ears too (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:20:24 PM EST
    It's not a question of fear (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    It's a question of reducing the issue down to a false choice.

    Parent
    Oh boy (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:32:47 AM EST
    Rove said he was gonna run on Iraq in 2006 and that Dems should bring it on then too.

    Man, you are so easy to manipulate that in many ways, you are a quintessential Dem.

    Parent

    at least i can tell the difference (none / 0) (#12)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    between jack kingston saying "if you want to end the war, then you must support defunding" with a smirk on his face from the senate floor and you saying "if you want to end the war, then you must support defunding" in complete sincerity on a blog.

    one of you actually wants to end the war.

    the other does not.

    what a rube, i am.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:35:25 PM EST
    what?

    Parent
    if that's a sincere question (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    jack kingston is trying to trap dems into making a false choice.

    you are trying to end the war.

    but you are both making the exact same statement about what a dem must do if a dem claims to want to end the war.

    i don't think i can be any more clear than that.

    i doubt those statements are being contested here.

    Parent

    I'm terribly afraid of Jack Kingston too (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:21:48 PM EST
    Terribly terribly afraid because he is one tough customer when he rolls into town.

    Parent
    i'm sorry to hear that (none / 0) (#32)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    like i said above, i don't think it's a question of fear.

    it's a question of buying into a false choice.


    Parent

    Cheney knows 'his' Dems (none / 0) (#17)
    by fairleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    He controls the Democratic Party on this issue with his threats. He knows Reid, Durbin, and so on are whimps, and they responded just how Cheney wanted them to.

    Instead of a united front saying "If Bush refuses to sign a funding bill, he has defunded" we have disarray and worse, Obama saying the Dems shouldn't 'play chicken' with the troops over funding.

    Cheney threatens and the Dems respond how he thinks they will. So he's once again empowered to go forward on his neocon way.

    Parent

    what i tried to say above (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:16:26 PM EST
    is that dems saying "if bush refuses to sign a funding bill, HE has defunded" isn't enough.

    saying things doesn't make it so.

    there has to be a context or legitimate argument that allows such things to take hold in the consciousness of people not already "buying it."
     

    Parent

    Saying things always makes them SO (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:23:29 PM EST
    when Bush says them, how is it that that doesn't work the other way?  How is it that when the Democrats do what they were voted in to do and Bush vetos it, it isn't him not funding his troops?

    Parent
    you forget (none / 0) (#33)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    the context behind the bush admin repeating things over and over again was 9-11.

    it's pretty obvious to me at least that without 9-11, they could have repeated the iraq/terrorist connection ad infinitum and no one would have bought it.

    there has to be a context.  bush's team exploited one.


    Parent

    Boy do they have you buffaloed (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    into the unescapable corner, and you even let them poke you with a stick while their at it.  No offense intended but I won't be joining you.

    Parent
    ok (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:47:08 PM EST
    after you're done repeating the same thing over and over again, and it's still not taking hold, and you're wondering why it worked for the bush admin and not for you......

    Parent
    Listen Gollum (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    The precious isn't in your dark cramped cage friend.  If it was in your cage you would have found it by now.

    Parent
    Neat (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:58:58 PM EST
    That's a neat response.

    The best thing about it is how it addressed none of the arguments i've presented but instead resorts to a form of derision that only betrays ones own insecurities about their position on the issue.


    Parent

    You are trying to slide in (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    the bullsh*t idea that defunding the occupation is defunding the troops to smear defunding advocates with a strawman.

    It is not. It never has been. It never will be. It is the lamest argument you can put forward. It has been refuted so many times that you are not worth arguing with. Only a fool would think that people are fools enough to buy your crap.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:59:15 PM EST
    The arguement you cite is the VERY DEFINITION of a strawman.

    Parent
    i can destroy that comment (none / 0) (#34)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    in two seconds.  i will not.

    suffice to say you just said one of the generals who has been attacking the bush admin these days is full of bullsh*t.


    Parent

    If you think you can you would have. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    i already did (none / 0) (#38)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:48:02 PM EST
    i'll leave it to you to go look up eaton's transcript on bill maher.


    Parent
    See. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:50:53 PM EST
    I see (none / 0) (#41)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:52:39 PM EST
    what just happened here is that anyone else who happened to read this thread, probably did go and look up that transcript.

    and now they're reading something you don't know anything about.

    check it out.

    Parent

    Youi'd be trying here if you thought you could. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:54:30 PM EST
    Sucks to be in the dark (none / 0) (#44)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:55:51 PM EST
    and not even know what you're trying to refute.

    seriously.  you're a smart cookie.  go check it out.

    take care.


    Parent

    So you can't. NP. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:56:57 PM EST
    Stewieeeee was an example (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:36:15 PM EST
    of how quickly the rethugs will shrivel up and fold and look like fools if they try a BS accusation that the Democrats of not supporting the troops by claiming that defunding the occupation is defunding the troops. Like all rethug BS, it's an accusation that they cannot support factually.

    Parent
    Can't look something up on the internet? (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:55:40 PM EST
    Do I really need to spoon feed it to you?

    Parent
    See? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:05:01 PM EST
    Here you go (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:13:27 PM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_3aZQsRcEk

    MAHER: I didn't know you felt that way. Well, let me ask you about this: there are two plans the Democrats seem to have, or that they're floating in Congress. One is to de-fund the war. The other one is to set a timetable. The Bush Administration says both things would somehow hurt the troops. Would it hurt the troops if we de-funded the war? Would that affect them?


    EATON: It would be a very serious problem for the United States Army, and it would be political suicide for the Democratic Party.

    More from Eaton:

    http://www.youtube.com/v/tw4jSZLkJqA

    One can either feel free to wonder if Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton is full of sh@t on the issue of defunding, or pick and choose his positions on the issues to suit their own.

    One can say he is full of sh@t and spews right wing propaganda, if one chooses to do so.

    Or one may simply feel free to troll rate this as well.

    I think it would only be appropriate for you to do so as that's all you got.

    All I gots is this:  I agree with Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.  

    Parent

    Too little too late. stewed. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:40:31 PM EST
    Didn't know there (none / 0) (#73)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:45:02 PM EST
    was a time limit on providing good info on talkleft.com.

    let me ask.  are you the hall monitor?

    Parent

    Naaw. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:48:16 PM EST
    You can sit here and play with yourself as long as you like. ;-)

    Parent
    That's good news (none / 0) (#75)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:49:35 PM EST
    for talkleft.

    take care.

    Parent

    All due respect to Eaton (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:13:51 PM EST
    He is giving political opinions in this interview which we are all entitled. If these were battlefield opinions I take them more seriously but just because you were a General doesn't automatically make your political opinions better than those who are more politically informed.  He is worried about troops coming home not supported by the civilians.  He doesn't make anything clear as to how defunding could hurt troops on the ground other than that.  He does not understand that defunding the Iraq War means zero about Americans holding their troops in their hearts and their hands when they get home.  It scares many soldiers where Iraq is concerned that the people could turn personally against them.

    Parent
    It seems to me he is expressing both (none / 0) (#78)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:05:23 PM EST
    A Political Opinion ("Political Suicide for the Democratit Party")

    And a Military Opinion ("A very serious problem for the United States Army.")

    It is his Military Opinion that I value here.

    Parent

    I don't see how it is a military opinion (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:48:45 PM EST
    when he gives no examples.  It's just guessing what he meant and I don't see that as worth debating.

    Parent
    Bizarre (none / 0) (#80)
    by Stewieeeee on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:37:42 PM EST
    "A very serious problem for the United States Army," isn't an opinion about the military?

    Fine.  To each their own.  The man is not prone to mincing words.  If one needs specifics before they're willing to accept that "A very serious problem for the United states army" means nothing more or less than just that, I guess that remains open.

    I hope if anyone ever takes the issue up with him further, they ask for those specifics.

    I know what he meant but specifics would be worth discussing.  I'm all for it.

    Parent

    How is it a problem for the U.S. Military? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:41:39 AM EST
    Is it a PR problem?  What sort of problem.  Generals worry about PR about as much as they worry about everything else too.  You are digging in fog because you have no where else to dig to support your personal agenda.

    Parent
    Like I said (none / 0) (#83)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:20:35 AM EST
    Specifics would be great.

    I guess Eaton was talking about PR.

    tell you what.  if you're convinced he wasn't talking about an impact on military preparedness, then we'll just have to RESPECTFULLY disagree on that.

    Parent

    DEMS DON'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS (none / 0) (#15)
    by lilybart on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    This will be screamed from the rooftops by the REPS who dominate ALL the talk shows and the MSM will parrot it too.

    If the media does not think defunding is a good idea, then they won't report the facts.

    The media is the problem.

    And a united Dem leadership would shout right back (none / 0) (#18)
    by fairleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:10:01 PM EST
    The Dem leadership and Presidential candidates would get plenty of time to talk back. And they could say, "We gave him a funding bill and he vetoed it. Bush defunded the troops. In fact, we're trying to send another short-term bill to his desk today, but the Repubs are filibustering it! (If that's the scenario)."

    Well, of course, what the leadership and our presidential candidates actually would say, based on our history with these whimps and closet occupation lovers.... So it's not the mainstream media that's the problem on this issue, the 'other' side (mainstream big Dems) would be allowed enough voice, because there's enough MSM responsiveness to the massive voter disgust with the fact we're still in Iraq.


    Parent

    I don't believe the media (none / 0) (#19)
    by lilybart on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    will give equal time to the Dems.

    they don't now
    what would change?

    Parent

    With 20% we'd be fine (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by fairleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:31:26 PM EST
    Our message, getting out of Iraq, doesn't need to 'dominate' media time. It just needs about 20%, which the Big Dems will be allowed.

    The problem has been for years that Big Dems buy into Republican framing (or worse, they actually agree with the Republicans on Iraq) and use their 20% incompetently, incoherently, and/or to betray the 'out of Iraq' cause.

    Parent