home

Iraq Supplemental: Dems Negotiate Against Themselves

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:57:02 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is entirely predictable:

Democratic congressional leaders on Friday offered the first concessions in a fight with President Bush over a spending bill for Iraq, but the White House turned them down.

In a closed-door meeting with Bush's top aides on Capitol Hill, Democrats said they'd strip billions of dollars in domestic spending out of a war spending that Bush opposed if the president would accept a timetable to pull combat troops out of Iraq. As part of the deal, Democrats said they would allow the president to waive compliance with a deadline for troop withdrawals. But no deal was struck.

. . . White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, who rejected the deal, said any timetable on the war would undermine the nation's efforts in Iraq. "We consider that to be not a significant distinction," he said. "Whether waivable or not, timelines send the wrong signal."

And so it goes. The choice for the Democratic Congress is binary. Continue to fund the Iraq Debacle on Bush's terms or end the Debacle by announcing a date certain when the Debacle will not be funded. Yes, the Reid-Feingold framework.

< Rudy Paid Judi for Speechwriting | MSNBC Permits Obvious GOP Falsehood >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Iraq Supplemental: Dems Negotiate Against Themselves | 61 comments (61 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    So, this is their idea 'negotiating' (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:10:02 PM EST
    and 'compromising' with Bush?

    "Here's a bill"

    "No. Take this out"

    "OK - here's a revised bill"

    "No. Take this out"

    "OK - here's another revised bill"

    "No. Take this out"

    "OK"... "Well - we tried to end it, but the guy won't play nice." "What the hell do you people expect from us?" "Vote for us anyway next year, huh?"

    There's really nothing left to say, is there? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    I suppose they could pass a really weak bill and still have it vetoed by Bush. But at this point it seems like they'll beg him to accept anything.

    But they really tried to end the debacle. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:12:37 PM EST
    Just ask them.

    Parent
    And they'll keep trying (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    They can't do it without Republicans, remember!

    Parent
    Oh, right. ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    I forgot. It's an elephant stampede. Rethugs are falling all over themselves to distance themselves from Bush and the Debacle and vote with the Democrats to create a veto-proof majority.

    "But I don't want to go among mad people" Alice remarked.

    "Oh, you can't help that" said the Cat: "We're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad."

    "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.

    "You must be" said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."



    Parent
    This is what happens when you "try" (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:19:02 PM EST
    to do something verses doing it!

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:37:25 PM EST
    It's like "trying" to make it to work on time bit always being late?

    People who are above the line have 3 consistent characteristics. Firstly, they take Ownership of things that they do, or take part in. That means they're committed to the Results. When they play a game, they try their absolute best. And if they have a project at work , they take it seriously.

    Now, linked to that is Accountability. Because they take Ownership, they're Accountable for their actions. They know and accept that good or bad, it comes down to them, and they'll do what it takes to fix things. The third Characteristic after Ownership and Accountability is Responsibility. It would follow that someone who was above the line in all their dealings would understand that they were also responsible for their actions. In fact, you'd never hear someone who was above the line say " Hey, its not my fault, why should I have to fix it?" Actually, a statement like that would come from someone who was Below the line.

    If we refer to people who are above the line as "winners", these people often get referred to as "losers". You can use three key words to outline the description of people who are Below the Line. These people place Blame, Make Excuses, and are in Denial.

    Who's picture just flashed through your mind?....

    People who are Below the line place Blame on things that happen. That is, they don't take any ownership of problems or challenges. They also make Excuses. These excuses are generally to tell others how they couldn't possibly get something done....like show up to work on time. And when someone is below the line, they're in Denial. You see nothing is their fault, they're perfect.

    Here's a not-so-imaginary conversation with someone who's below the line. Lets say they're late for work all the time. You've asked them about it, and here's your answer. "Well, It not my fault...traffic is so bad. They've been working on the highway for a month now, and it makes me late every day... When you're below the line, you're so firmly in Denial that it doesn't even occur to you that you might have to do something different to keep your commitments.

    Parent

    Can you say "Enablers"? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Dadler on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:16:01 PM EST
    These Dems are like enabling co-dependents.  They just can't bring themselves to the necessary confrontation with their partner, because that means they actually have to lead, that the co-dependent dance will have to end, that they'll be out there all alone.  

    What the F do they think real leadership IS in this kind of situation?  Handshakes and eye rolls?  Evidently.  

    Handshakes and eye rolls? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:22:41 PM EST
    Evidently.

    They could have had nearly all US Troops home to their families before July 4 this year, and had Iraq well on the way to peace and security for that country's people finally.

    the role of the netroots is to push and agitate, not to be reasonable and support Dems in their comfort zone.


    Parent
    Blank Check Anyone (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    After the Democrats feeble vote on Reid/Feingold, why would Bush and the Republicans make any compromises? The Dems keep shooting  themselves in the foot and then whine about being shot.

    If they employed the same negotiating style when buying a car as they have on Iraq funding, they would wind up paying 3 times the sticker price.

    Bottom line Bush will get his blank check and the occupation will continue well into 2009.

    The problem is (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    that they've decided they MUST buy the car.

    Parent
    AND (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    paying off the salesmans car loan at the same time.

    Parent
    Complicity and enabling (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:13:41 PM EST
    The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding since the invasion.

    There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without another emergency supplemental.

    "Since 9/11, Congress has passed at least one emergency bill to cover war costs, making supplemental spending the method of choice for the majority of funding for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror," Alexander added. "Of the $510 billion spent thus far, $331.8 billion (about 65 percent) has come from supplemental spending legislation. If the so-called "bridge fund" included in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill is included, the total rises to $401.8 billion. That means nearly 80 percent of all funding for these wars was the result of emergency and supplemental spending, not regular budgetary means."

    The total funds requested by the Defense Department for emergency spending is $163.4 billion, including $70 billion already provided as part of DOD's regular fiscal year appropriations plus a new supplemental request of $93.4 billion.

    "If enacted, DOD's funding would increase by 40 percent above the previous year and would more than double from the FY2004 funding level," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report says.    

    --War And Occupation Funding: More Cooking The Books By Bush And Pentagon?

    I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:31:07 PM EST
    it isn't what's in the bill so much as who it's from that's making the WH reject it. They're holding out for something more like Warner's proposal - which Bush has already expressed approval of - in order to protect themselves from the anti-Iraq fallout in 08 - See, we're the ones holding Bush's feet to the fire and bringing the war to an end, not those wimpy Democrats.

    Dems are being outflanked even if what they've been doing is not really trying to end the war just preparing to use it as a campaign issue next year.

    Oh, for a viable third party...

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:34:23 PM EST
    he's vetoing because he believes they don't have the guts to NOT submit a funding bill....

    Parent
    He's right. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:23:47 PM EST


    Parent
    So far he seems to be. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    They have to be made to understand to political cost to them of not ending it.

    Parent
    Hillary Clinton's responses to questions (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:06:54 PM EST
    the day after the vote were unreal.  Who knows how I'll vote in the future?  That vote was just procedural.  

    This comment is by a person who has tirelessly defended her from vilification.  

    Parent

    Sickening, huh? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:07:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, sadly, (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:47:21 PM EST
    I think that goes without saying at this point.

    I think though that R's are trying to use this as a way to mitigate their responsibility as a party for what's been done in Iraq. If Dems in a panic over failing to pass a bill support a Republican initiative, they're giving away the issue for 08.

    Parent

    Sure they are. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    The rethugs can't take responsibility for anything. They have to try to maneuver the Democrats into taking the blame.

    If you killed nearly a million people wouldn't you?

    Parent

    The rethugs (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:29:37 PM EST
    having nothing to offer but more death, are going to try to win by making the Democrats lose. Standard rethug 'can't lift themselves so drag everybody else down to their level' strategy.

    The Democratic leadership thinks they can win by funding the occupation so that it will still be going on next year for them to run against.

    To do that they have to pay for it.

    With American lives. And Iraqi lives.

    As soon as they do the electorate will blame the occupation on the Democrats.

    The Republicans are a top down authoritarian organized machine. Not many will flip. They are laughing at the Democrats fighting amongst and dividing themselves.

    The DLC, when they lose next year, will blame their loss on people who advocated defunding and ending the occupation by saying that there was no unity behind continuing to fund death to run against.

    Wonderful scenario.

    The only way out of it is the Democratic Leadership defunding the occupation. By do that they will cut the feet off the Republicans.

    It's the only way that makes any sense.

    Parent

    These folk (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by buhdydharma on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:49:42 PM EST
    better get this learning curve out of the way quick.

    Bush has nothing to lose....the Dems can buy the entire mess if they give in.

    You know what my answer is

    De-fund and impeach.

    Oppose DIRECTLY. SOON.

    Anything else and I will have no choice but to start using the "C" word.

    This ain't "hardball" This is life or death for the soldiers, the Iraqis and the Constitution.

    Am I Daft? (none / 0) (#11)
    by RenaRF on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    Personally, I think that the repeated calls to continually resubmit the same bill without any changes or compromises is brilliant.  It's as though they aren't considering the entire political landscape - with the growing unrest over the AG scandal coupled with rehashing of corruption/impropriety charges among Bush cronies past and present, and THEN with the mounting Iraq death toll post-"surge", it seems that this tactic would work.  And not just work - there's potential for a crushing political blow that could neutralize Bush for the remainder of his term.

    WTF?

    Do you expect (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    that Bush nevers signs? Assuming the Dems would hold for this, which in the short term seems impossible.

    This might be an approaqch for the regular appropriations I suppose if you can get a real bill with teeth.

    The same bill was crappy. Really crappy.

    Folks seem not to remember that.

    Parent

    Then I'd be all for (none / 0) (#37)
    by RenaRF on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:30:34 PM EST
    "harshing up" the bill.  But NOT repeatedly making concessions.

    And yeah - keep submitting the bill (or harsher versions) and keep letting him veto.  It's a game of chicken as I see it.  Repeatedly compromising is tantamount to blinking, and then we lose.

    Parent

    You're making a fundamental mistake (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:53:55 PM EST
    The debacle will not be ended through negotiation. Democrats will have to end it on their own by indicating a date past which they refuse to fund any further operations. BTD has suggested 3/31/2008, as per Reid-Feingold.

    Parent
    Is it not possible (none / 0) (#42)
    by RenaRF on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:57:01 PM EST
    that they can do both?  In other words, can they play chicken with the President (thereby further lame-ducking him) AND push for the date certain?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:12:47 PM EST
    You're about as likely to get benchmarks as your are to get impeachment. In other words, it's not happening. "Mr. President, here's your war severance check; there won't be another one."

    Parent
    See my latest post (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:19:06 PM EST
    What I said for months now on the Iraq Supplemental has has finally dawned on the Dems in the Congress.

    I told them so.

    Parent

    Many of us thought (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:13:36 PM EST
    that the original bill was very, very stupid.

    Parent
    If we keep sending back (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    the same bill, how many vetoes does it take before we say, enough, no more spending bills?

    Kos has just made a post where he says "It's time for congressional Dems to send Bush the exact same bill as last time. If Bush wants to defund his own war by vetoing the supplemental, that'll be his problem." The illogic in this is, why didn't we declare it Bush's problem the first time he vetoed the bill? Why does the second veto make it his problem when the first didn't?

    Can you not see how sending it back, followed by a veto, will just result in another call of 'send back the same bill, if Bush vetoes it, that's HIS problem'?

    And what if Bush doesn't veto it this time? Then he gets the money, and a set of restraints that are utterly non-restraining.

    No, I'm with BTD all the way on how to end this fiasco.

    Parent

    I'm with you Rena (none / 0) (#17)
    by Freewill on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:20:15 PM EST
    This nation is up against a Tyrant in the White House who wants to dictate on his terms only. I am so sickened by the fact that this President is allowed to send our brave men and women into harms way against the warnings of the top Military Leaders who, for some odd reasons, now do not work, or have been removed by this same Administration who claims that they only listen to the top Military Leaders.

    I'm hard pressed to see any other way the Congress can make this President remove our Troops.

    If they simply Not Fund the war as so many Republican Talking heads have stated time and time again in the Media, how will the Republican and Blue Dog Democrats in Congress vote? That would be something I would love to see once and for all!

    The great Republican Brer Rabbit moment in Congress: "please don't throw me in that briar patch!".

    Parent

    Freewill (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    how will the Republican and Blue Dog Democrats in Congress vote?

    They won't.

    I can see defunding sounding to some like something is being taken away, or a reversing of a prior appropriation. Like something that needs pro-action. Like a bill to be voted on.

    It is none of those things.

    NO bill and NO vote is needed to NOT fund.


    Parent

    I'm confused..Sending bills to the Prez (none / 0) (#12)
    by Freewill on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    that contain the money requested by the President but also contains language that the President, time and time again has whined about and will veto each and every time, regardless - I'm really wondering, "Isn't this not considered Not funding the war"?

    The President and his party wants to dictate the terms of the bill and will not settle for anything even if it contains the funds that he urgently requested be given to him last month because of the "dire consequences" of not having the money before Congress went on Easter Vacation. We now see that those same "dire consequences" (note for the Authoritarians, paraphrasing alert Authoritarians) that the President so warned the world about never materialized. Why did the President sound false alarms about the funding at that time?

    Now, he is given everything he wants. He's not being placed under any type of legally binding withdrawal time line but yet he refuses to fund his troops that he so dearly claims he supports?

    Why is the discussion about Congress when it should be about this President's lack of concern about funding his war and funding the troops sent to fight his war? He didn't oppose any types of "Pork" in the funding bills in the last 3 years but yet he acts as if it were the worst thing ever now!

    So, by sending something knowing that it is not going to be accepted even though it contains the funding (even more than the President requested and funding to actually support the Troops, their well-being and families) the President wants - why is the blame always being passed back to the Congress and this President gets, once again, a free pass and his hypocrisy is ignored?

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    Because Bush ain't gonna change.

    The Congress has to end the Debacle.

    Parent

    Without Funding? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Freewill on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    If there is no Funding how can the President continue?

    He's stated time and time again that he will not sign a bill that contains "this or that". Well, so be it!

    Because Bush ain't gonna change.
    The Congress has to end the Debacle.

    My point exactly BTD! By doing what they are doing isn't that doing something? We just saw how Reid-Feingold went over in Congress. What do you propose now?

    I just want the blame for this mess not be directed at Congress but to be focused towards Bush and his Cronies! I'm tired of the Media allowing them to control the message! It's time that the message is reversed. How many times in the media do you hear that the bill sent to the President has everything he wanted? How often does the media also include the facts about how the Troops and their Families are being allocated more funding by this bill from Congress? Not often enough! The only thing this Nation's media is concerned with is "Bull-horning" Bush's message and they allow his message to be the only side heard in this debate! This is why our Nation is brain-washed into believing that its all Congress's fault and they give the pass to King George!

    Parent

    Because if they keep stripping out things (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    except the funding he is going to sign and take it at some point. And the Democrats will have enabled and paid for his occupation of Iraq (which, it appears, is exactly what they want and intend to do)

    Parent
    I'm extremely worried about that as well (none / 0) (#25)
    by Freewill on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:33:51 PM EST
    Because if they keep stripping out things except the funding he is going to sign and take it at some point. And the Democrats will have enabled and paid for his occupation of Iraq (which, it appears, is exactly what they want and intend to do)

    I completely agree with you on this and the game of "Chicken" being conducted by everyone in D.C. is going to backfire in some one's face sometime in the near future. I just want it to be in Bush's direction!

    This is why I become so discouraged when the only message being broadcast by the controlled media is a message scripted by Bush and Party. The actions so far by Congress should have been partnered up with strong Media messages that explain Congress's positions but they don't get any attention. Instead, of trying to understand the tactic being employed by Congress to change the National dialect and help get that message out across the Nation all I ever hear from this side of the aisle is "Congress is Incompetent", "They're Stupid, they should do this <insert your wishes that you know will not get passed>" etc...

    We've already missed several opportunities to change the message because of our own nit-picking. Now what's left? Reid-Feingold Act 2? Something has to be done to take the Bullhorn away from this President so that his message isn't the only message being pounded into the American psyche and America wakes up and realizes what kind of nightmare Bush has placed us into.

    There are too many Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats willing to sacrifice our Troops lives just to save their political careers and America is allowing this to happen! What kind of a vote could ever get through Congress? What actually can Congress do to stop Bush immediately that will pass by vote or veto-proof margins? How can Congress ensure that Bush can't stall any actions against him until he's long gone from office?

    I'm afraid that simply not offering an opportunity to "Fund the Troops" is worse in the long run than the attempts to be bi-partisan and work on legislation to "Fund the Troops". As bad as things are right now, I can see it becoming even worse if America is allowed to be brain-washed even more with a message that "it's the Democrats fault for the mess the world is in now since they didn't Support our Troops" message that is sitting right on the edge of every Bush Enabler's lips. They are just waiting for that very moment because it has been a tried-and-tested slogan that excites their base and convinces many Americans that Democrats are weak on Defense. It is such a fallacy but yet it works for them! And because we have allowed this sloganteering to work in the past, how many more Wars will we be tossed into in our future if we allow it to work again now! What would be the long-term cost in lives for generations to come?

    Bush and his Enablers have already signaled that Defeat is immanent in Iraq. The hand writting is everywhere that this middle east dream is dead! Instead of doing the only responsible thing and remove our troops from harms way, Bush does the opposite and places more in harms way. Why? And why only after the Democrats win control of the House? Because he knows it's over but he wants to pin the blame onto the Democrats just like they did back in the post-Vietnam era when Democrats became labled as weak on defense!  

    We need to seize any opportunity to turn Bush's own words against him and make him live to regret the day he ever spouted his own words before this mess is passed onto our children's children's children!

    Parent

    There are... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:43:22 PM EST
    ...multiple disinformation campaigns going on, that the media in their complicity with and control by rethugs is pushing at people.

    Forget the media. They will not help. People talking to each other will help, the netroots will help, threads like this will help.

    Forget the media. Pressure the DLC.

    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 responsibility 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

    Make them understand. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:54:18 PM EST
    That >> this << is what will happen to them next year.

    ...no serious effort to bring the war to an end or even prevent a new war from being launched. Democrats are politely requesting Bush Administration officials to appear to discuss tangential issues. Democrats are "calling for" resignations. And we may be about to see considerably fewer Democrats vote against funding the war than did so when they were in the minority. The Democrats are about to buy this war, and once they've bought it, it will be their war. They won't get another chance to end it, and they'll be even less inclined (if that's possible) to investigate it.

    No More Money: It's a simple concept. The American public wants the war ended. The President wants the war to continue. The 110th Congress was elected to end the war. The Constitution gives Congress the power to cut off the money. Where's the problem?

    If you have a Democratic Congress Member, phone them at 202-224-3121 and tell them you will never vote for a Democrat again until the war ends. Tell them you'll be mailing them your voter registration card and would like it sent back the minute the war is over. It doesn't matter if you actually have such a card in your wallet. The point is to tell them that you will not vote for them if they do not end the war.

    No More Democratic Guts To End The Iraq & Mid-East Debacle?

    Parent
    If you have their email address (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    send the a link to this thread.

    Parent
    I realize this isn't popular (none / 0) (#41)
    by RenaRF on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:55:18 PM EST
    but I am very hesitant to go with the "no bill" option.  First, I don't necessarily believe that "no bill" gets the troops home so substantially sooner that it's worth the political cost to the Democrats (and I DO believe the "no bill" option provides incredible political risk to the Democrats).  Please disabuse me of this impression if I'm mistaken, but there's been much talk about how much the previous supplementals will cover going forward.  In other words, I'm of the opinion that all the doom and gloom administration shill talk about how money is going to run out is, to say the least, far from the truth.

    So why not consider something that accomplishes essentially the same end (troops home) AND provides the Democrats with a "victory" AND neutralizes Bush for the remainder of his term?

    Caveat: There is a LOT of contradictory information out there about current funding and how long the troops can go under current funding.  I'm totally open to information that causes me to reconsider.

    Parent

    Think about it. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:03:59 PM EST
    How many lives are you willing to trade for what you think might be 'avoiding' a cost? Would you not consider those lives a 'cost'?

    How do you come to the conclusion that paying for it for 'awhile' will end it sooner and result in less death than 'not paying for it'?

    Parent

    Then this is a confusing question (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:08:28 PM EST
    Why is the discussion about Congress when it should be about this President's lack of concern about funding his war and funding the troops sent to fight his war?


    Parent
    False Choices from Both Sides of the Aisle (none / 0) (#46)
    by Freewill on Fri May 18, 2007 at 07:21:39 PM EST
    While I wholeheartedly agree with a complete cut-off of funds to cut support of this war, I can not simply state, "Tell the Dems to stop funding or I will never vote for them again" concept.

    I can tell you this as a fact! I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN PERIOD! Before Bush took office, I've always considered myself as an independent type voter. "I'll vote for how the candidate will handle the issues" type of person. However, Bush and his shrill Republican Blank Checkers have been such hypocrites in every thing they have ever said! Most Republicans do not display a single ounce of integrity. They only act as mere lemmings and follow their leaders reguardless of the cliff they might lead this nation to fall off from! They held no investigations! They didn't protect the Constitution, they tried to stereotype everyone who wanted debate about the war as Terrorists Enablers and tagged us as Un-American, Freedom Hating, Tree-Hugging, Soft on Defense Liberals bent on defeat! I once thought that most Republicans had some decent arguments to back their agenda but I haven't heard anything honest from them for the past 14 years. All they ever do now days is play to the emotions and avoid any intellectual debates.

    Because of the dishonesty in Republican Messages and the complete lack of any TRUTH from them I can never again and I say this with complete sincerity, I will never vote for a Republican for as long as I live!

    So, I can honestly say this as well; because I'm not happy about this war I'm not going to Blame the Democrats for the complete mess and the 6 years of total Republican control that got us into this mess! Do we sit here and expect the Democrats to, only after 4 1/2 months in power, do we expect they can completely change what took 6 years of total Republican, uncensored, unregulated, power to create?

    Wow, go ahead and completely blame the Democrats for this War and once again let Bush and the Republican party have a free pass to sit back and watch the Dem Bashing party once again! I can't participate with that logic.

    I'm just extremely concerned, just like how the "Tough on Defense" title passed parties to the Republicans after Vietnam that if we do not change the hypnotic popular belief that Dems are soft on National Defense jargon that this Nation will suffer more and more wars for generations to come.

    Just listen to the "Tough on Defense" crowd. They completely believe that starting wars is being tough on National Defense. It doesn't matter to them if it's an unnecessary war, as long as the U.S. is involved in a War anywhere in the world,  in their minds that is equal to being Tough on National Defense. (Well, as long as it is their idea to go to war and not a Democrats!)

    The "Tough on Defensers" shun any attempts made to include themselves from having to participate in actually being involved in these wars. Why do they hesitate reinstating the DRAFT? A draft without special deferments for the privileged? Why do they oppose taking away the tax breaks to the wealthiest to help pay for their wars? Why do they insist on allowing companies to profit from these wars?

    Congressman Charlie Reingold has exposed these Cheerleaders for what they are and proposed a Draft to the Republican Controlled Government (at the time) but yet they quickly refused this notion? Why? If America is really at risk of losing its Freedoms and being over run by Terrorists Entities who hate us, then why wouldn't they want every U.S. Citizen to stand up and protect America and share the burdens of this war?

    I can't simply blame Democrats after only 4 1/2 months of something that took 6 years to be deeply ingrained into the Masses minds. I only hope and pray that Republicans can't hand over their ownership for their mistakes and sins to Democrats who have only been in power for 4 1/2 months out of the last 13 years. I do not want a repeat of allowing Republican talking heads to be able to get away with their favorite talking point "Liberals are soft on Defense" stereotyping just because they are setting this whole damn mess up and killing innocents to allow them some self-proclaimed talking points about how tough they are and how soft Lefties are!

    So, please explain to me again how telling my Democratic leaders I'll never vote for them again because they have not stopped Bush after only 4 1/2 months of control in Congress and allowing Republicans total control again in the future to start more wars is going to help anything right now? The logic escapes me!

    If the People kick Democrats out of office because of Bush's Mess, who are we going to replace them with? More Republicans? Please let me know because I haven't seen many other parties knocking on Washington's doors yet that America will accept.

    His statement was close to that but not quite. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 07:30:11 PM EST
    It was "tell them you will never vote for a Democrat again until the war ends." as a pressure tactic to sweat them to defund. David Swanson is the campaign manager for Kucinich. He wasn't suggesting "never vote for democrats again".

    Parent
    The problem for us as voters is (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:20:02 PM EST
    there's no clear way to register a statement of negation of this very dysfunctional status quo. Obviously you don't want to vote for a Republican. Voting third-party is throwing your vote away, or harming your preferred course of action indirectly. If you don't vote at all your protest is interpreted as a result of your being apathetic and lazy and not a good citizen, not as a protest. So pressure tactics like this are all we really have to work with.

    If we had a "none of the above" electoral option and exercised it in great numbers things might change.

    They only act as mere lemmings and follow their leaders reguardless of the cliff they might lead this nation to fall off from!

    What the R's have been doing with it is bad, but a bit of party discipline like that is something I'd like Dems to aspire to.

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by squeaky on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:58:10 PM EST
    What the R's have been doing with it is bad....

    They couldn't have done it without the help of the Dems. They all have the same paymasters.

    Parent

    You've all presented your ideas extremely well (none / 0) (#50)
    by Freewill on Sat May 19, 2007 at 08:17:35 AM EST
    But I still have concerns:

    How do we effectively change the political landscape without shooting ourselves in the foot?

    But here's the problem: The Democratic party is diverse and encourages differences of opinions in open and honest debates. The Republican party discourages alternate opinions and silences those within their party who break from the scripted messages. Because only but a very few control the entire Republican Party's agenda, the public conceives unity coming from the Right Side of the Aisle while the numerous opinions coming from the Left Side instill chaos and discourse in the public mind. This is something that Republicans have seized upon and used as their stereotyping tool against the Democratic Party to discourage potential Democratic voters.

    I for one, hope that the Left can someday destroy the Republican Stereotyping propaganda of the Left. I don't think the agenda of a Free Nation of Millions should ever be controlled by only a few as the Republican Leadership has demonstrated over and over again. Why did the Nation ever accept the False Promises made by the Republican Party as the only message and agenda that should be accepted in large? Republicans have been able to broadly paint anyone who does not share their views as being Anti-American. How in the hell did they ever receive the rights to make such proclamations and even worse why did we allow that message to fester like it did?

    This is why this issue is so deeply felt by me. I do not want the Republican Party to ever again be allowed to make such idiotic statements that re-define Democracy, Freedom, Liberty, Liberal, Patriotic, and AMERICAN etc...

    I believe Democracy works best when diverse opinions interact and merge to create a common goal for the whole. Singlely defined agendas that exclude many Americans and divide this Country have been the main objective of the Republican Party and they have been allowed to steal Freedoms away from everyone, right in plain sight and America has given them the rights to do that.

    We need to change the message that Republicans want America to believe in. We need to encourage our Nation to embrace diversity of opinions and not view that as weakness but instead accept that as a virtuous and expected part of Freedom that every American can be proud of! I've always believed that these views of diversity and Freedom were what made our Nation one of the greatest Nations in the World.  

    This is why I want to give the Democratic Party in Congress right now an opportunity. They need our strength in numbers, they need our voices to amplify the message. We can't nit-pick each and every thing they attempt to accomplish thus dividing ourselves up into tiny little, less powerful voices in America.  Every time we do this, Republicans seize the opportunity to paint us yet again as being divided and weak and Republicans some how gain enough respect as being tough enough to vote back into office time and time again!

    We are not all going to be happy with 100% of everything that is being legislated. But waging a negative, name calling campaign each and every time we disagree with this or that path Congress decides to take is only self-destructive and opens ourselves to attacks that make us appear indefensible.

    At some point in time we need to understand that the Democratic Party that encourages diversity also has to work harder to ensure enough votes to pass their legislation and make their ideas into Law. I hope we never fall prey to the Republican tactic of single minded control of their party because that to me would be the death of Democracy and Freedom in America.

    I'm sorry all for my ramblings. I'm just tired of living in a Republican controlled city, within a Republican controlled state where registered Democratic voters out number Republicans, and I'm really sick and tired of the Republican controlled Federal Government and their agendas. I just want to see something different because the Left's own destructive nature from within surly isn't going to win the hearts and minds of this Nation. It's been proved time and time again!

    Parent

    Top down authoritarian rule (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 08:58:43 AM EST
    is what the republicans offer.

    give the Democratic Party in Congress right now an opportunity. They need our strength in numbers

    No matter what they do? How is that different from the GOP?

    We can't nit-pick each and every thing they attempt to accomplish

    This sounds like you consider pushing to defund the occupation of Iraq nit-picking.

    Parent

    Just keeping it Real! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Freewill on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:45:02 AM EST
    "As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?" 5/4-6/07

    Approve 44%   Disapprove 54%   Unsure 2%

    Sounds like we have a winner eh?
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Hold up though:

    "If you had to choose just one of the three proposals I just read, which ONE would you MOST like to see become law? A bill that would provide additional funds for Iraq that would set a specific date to start withdrawing troops. A bill that would provide additional funds for Iraq that would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government but not set a specific timetable for troop withdrawal. A bill that would not provide additional funds for Iraq and would require all troops to be withdrawn by March." 5/4-6/07

      Funds Specific Date 33%
      Funds Benchmarks 40%
      No Funds,March Withdrawal 24%
      Unsure 3%  

    Um, why does the majority of America want Benchmarks instead of a Specific Date to Leave? Even now, 4 years into this mess they still believe this is the best route? Why can't we take the Funds Specific Date and the No Funds, March Withdrawal totals and combine them somehow to over power the Benchmark lovers?
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Wait:

    "As you may know, Congress passed a bill in 2002 that gave President Bush the authority to conduct military actions in Iraq. Would you favor or oppose a bill that would revoke that bill and would require Bush to seek new authorization from Congress to continue the war in Iraq?" 5/4-6/07

      Favor 50%   Oppose 47%   Unsure 2%

       

    Huh? Almost 1/2 of America still believes that it's alright to be in Iraq?

    ---------------------------------------------------

    "Do you think President Bush strongly supports, only moderately supports, or does not support the U.S. troops currently stationed in Iraq?"5/4-6/07

      Strongly Supports 57%
      Moderately Supports 26%
      Does Not Support 15%
      Unsure 2%  

    Wow, America believes that President Bush is the best thing for our Military? WTF?
    ---------------------------------------------------
    One more out of numerous polls:

    "Who do you think is MORE responsible for the fact that the U.S. troops currently in Iraq have not yet received additional funds: President Bush, because he vetoed the Iraq funding bill passed by Congress, OR, the Democrats in Congress, because they passed an Iraq funding bill that they knew Bush would veto?"
    5/4-6/07

      President Bush 34%
      Democrats In Congress 44%
      Both (vol.) 14%
      Neither (vol.) 4%
      Unsure 4%

    Darn, it's all Congresses fault that Bush Veto'd the funding bill! Go Figure!
    ---------------------------------------------------

    This sounds like you consider pushing to defund the occupation of Iraq nit-picking.

    Sorry Edger, I feel strongly about this subject the same as you do believe it or not! However, I truly believe in being a realist and not living in fantasy land thinking that most Americans will embrace a complete and utter defunding of this war! I'm also very weary of allowing once again Republicans the right to accuse Democrats for the attrocities that they created in the first place. Because they have been allowed to do that is why America is still in 2007 looking towards more wars and giving Republicans the tools in which to wage them!

    We have to win the "Hearts and Minds" of Americans first before we can convince them that Democrats are smarter and tougher on National Defense. Without America's support they will always percieve Republicans as better equiped to handle National Security and give them the powers to do what ever they want which means more Wars based upon idealogy for Generations to come!

    Poll Source

    Parent

    Freewill (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat May 19, 2007 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    What you're pushing here is the idea that we should cheer elected Dems on because otherwise the "disunity" we display will be harmful to the goals we all share - presumably democracy, diversity, the rule of law, blah blah blah. That thinking is appropriate to party staffers - you aren't one by the way, are you? - but not to us here discussing how to get our reluctant and cautious party to move from Point A to Point B toward goals we see as important, when any such movement is risky for them as individual pols and as an organization.

    You think we should cheer them on. I think that will be appropriate once they actually start doing the things we want them to do. Right now they're cowering in fear of the right-wing propaganda machine, biding their time and waiting for the political environment to become less toxic and public opinion to shift in their direction so that it's safe for them to act. But I have news for you. The way to make public opinion shift in your favor is to take clear, courageous, morally appropriate, and unapologetic stands on issues like Iraq, even if the polls currently say majorities are opposed to those stands. That's called leadership.

    The best way I and others here think to get this to happen is to make our elected Dems even more afraid of their base for not acting than they are of the right wing for acting. Ugly but necessary I'm afraid.

    Parent

    You didn't answer my questions. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:03:20 AM EST


    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#55)
    by Freewill on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    give the Democratic Party in Congress right now an opportunity. They need our strength in numbers

    No matter what they do? How is that different from the GOP?

    No matter what they do? - No, I strongly believe in diversity. However, we can spin our wheels over and over again and only make ourselves weaker in the process and thus the Republicans gain the edge once again and win the "hearts and minds" of Americans again in 2008! In a few years we'll be sitting here waiting for 2012 to try and take control of the Executive Branch! 4 1/2 months of House Control and we honestly think that we can solve a problem that has taken years to create? I don't believe the polls I displayed are far from the truth! Just talk to everyone around you and you'll see very similar results.

    How is that different from the GOP? In essence it's not that different but how else do we ensure an end to this conflict? Do we simply cut funding, allow the Repub Message Machine to start allowing all the videos of the Bombings in the Middle East to be shown again in America? Do you trust our own leaders enough to believe they themselves wouldn't be the ones setting the Bombs in Iraq against the Iraqi citizens once we evacuate Iraq in order to demonstrate some sick and perverted reasoning that it's all Democrats faults for the mess we left? Do you really believe that a handful of "Terrorists" with box knives took over 3 airplanes and made 3 building fall straight down within hours? Do you believe Republicans don't pander to the fears of America? Do you honestly believe that Republicans don't use fear propaganda to control Americans? Do you actually want decades more of Republican Control of our Government?

    Chose wisely if you dare not to abandon any hopes in the near future to change America for the better. A temporary fix to a solution that ignores America's wishes can lead to a complete loss of control for the future!

    "A failure to plan is a plan for failure". I believe that our Democratic leaders understand that losing 2008 could be disastrous for generations to come! They are not planning to allow Republicans to regain full control of all branches of Government and I fully support that game plan. Like I said before, yeah, we can will a temporary withdraw by simply defunding but I don't think America will support that move after Republicans, the Media, and all their Funders get done brainwashing America that it was all Democrats fault for this mess.

    Drastic as it seems we at least need to give them a chance to prove themselves once. Hell, we've given Republicans blank checks for years now and never once held them accountable for their actions!

    This sounds like you consider pushing to defund the occupation of Iraq nit-picking.

    Yeah, I do when Republicans screw things up over and over again but are never held accountable for their actions by America but yet only after 4 1/2 months we expect maracles from Democrats and call for abandonment of the party if they don't do the bidding of each and everyone of us, yeah that's nit-picking in my book!

    We need to win the popular opinion in America first! If we go for the Hell Mary play on First Play of the Game against the wishes of America I see this as handing Republicans the Game. I can't abandon my hopes for the future on ONE DIVERSIVE PLAY!

    Parent

    I was trying to avoid getting here, (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    because till now I didn't believe it.

    But you are more concerned, it appears, with wanting the democrats in power than you are with the people dying in Iraq.

    Parent

    Please do go there (none / 0) (#59)
    by Freewill on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:05:07 AM EST
    Touche

    Maybe so! But I can say the same of you.

    You are more concerned, it appears, with wanting a temporary withdraw only to allow Republicans the right to kill far more and start many more wars in the future!

    I respectfully agree to disagree with your reasoning but you still have my respect! I do not see the need for this war and I deeply regret every life that was lost and I want it to stop right now but I don't want to sacrifice many more lives in the future. It has to stop for good, once and for all and if Republicans regain control LOOK OUT!

    Am I wrong in thinking Republicans will start many more wars if given the opportunity?

    Parent

    Go (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:08:41 PM EST
    here.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#56)
    by Freewill on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:43:08 AM EST
    Let's move the discussion back over to the Left side of the page. For some reason I dislike moving these types of discussions to the Right.
    ;-)

    Parent
    There isn't much discussion left. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:47:05 AM EST


    Parent
    The DLC is 'not' encouraging diversity of ideas... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:27:01 AM EST
    ...any more than the GOP is.

    The Bush Veto, the Democrats' Response, and Why Millions Must Break with the Politics of Empire

    Despite protestations by leading Democrats like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (who claims, "make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war"), the bill they sent to Bush and their response to his veto illustrate that their position on the war is a thoroughly imperialist one, making them unwilling and unable to really end the war.

    First, the appropriations bill they drafted never called for a complete withdrawal from Iraq--much less the Middle East.  It called for a phased withdrawal of most combat forces, but envisioned leaving thousands of soldiers in Iraq indefinitely to fight "terrorists," protect U.S. installations, and train Iraqi forces. And U.S. forces redeployed to other countries in the region would be available to re-invade Iraq and/or be used to attack other countries in the region. It is also very exposing that  the Democrats refused to include language in the bill requiring Bush to consult Congress before attacking Iran .

    Second, the logic of the bill was to threaten troop withdrawals to force the Iraqi government to meet U.S. "benchmarks" such as passing an oil bill, building their armed forces, disarming militias, and curbing the civil war/sectarian violence dynamic now gripping Iraq. These are the same goals Bush spelled out in his January 10 address to the nation, aimed at creating a stable, pro-U.S. government in Iraq. The Democrats also want to cut U.S. losses, preserve the military, and regroup to defend broader U.S. regional interests.

    When Bush vetoed the bill, and the Democrats failed to override it, they immediately began talking about concessions: giving Bush the money he wanted and removing any timetables for troop withdrawals. Simply refusing to fund the war (including by filibustering) wasn't considered.
    Iraq Supplemental: Dems Negotiate Against Themselves | 61 comments (61 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment