Anybody else think it's the damn Dems vote on Iraq funding

[acmavm]

that emboldened Chimpy and his handlers to break the 'bush** sees the US in Iraq until every drop of oil is gone' news today?

I most certainly do. It's because they chickened out, showed they are terrified of actually doing something, and wrote the bastard a blank check. And Chimpy & Co. not being totally stupid, knew that they could do anything, say anything, they want. Especially when the signing statement giving Chimpy full power over everything have drawn no outrage, not even a comment, from the democrats that we sooooooo foolishly sent to Washington last November.

All we accomplished was providing them a way to suck at the taxpayer teat. While we take it in the shorts because of a 'secret' trade deal they made.

[mike_c]

1. it's no surprise to many of us....

Perpetual war for corporate imperialism. Brought to you by Exxon, Haliburton, GE, et al.

[acmavm]

3. Not what I asked Mike. I asked if it wasn't the cowardly actions

of the dems that made them feel safe in unveiling the real plans.

[mike_c]

10. I dunno-- my point is that the "real plans" were never hidden in the first place....

I mean, they pretty much spelled it out in the PNAC documents and the various neocon doctrine pubs.

There IS a real disjunct between the open philosophical doctrine of these people and the political rationalizing they do, but I've never doubted their real intent. Maybe you're right in that now their power is so thoroughly consolidated that they can drop some of the public mask, but it was never a completely effective charade anyway.

You know, there's a thread in the science forum wondering why people are willfully ignorant about science, but the question applies in politics and public discourse as well. People are quick to accept damn nearly anything that politicians tell them, even when it's utterly transparently false and manipulative. The truth about the Bush administration has never been hidden very well, but people have willingly embraced the falsehoods and misdirection they've served up from the very beginning. If they're letting the mask slip a little now, it's likely because they think they have nothing to fear from anyone. You're probably right in that regard.

[mzmolly]

2. No.

We attempted a deadline it was vetoed, we have to have Republicans on board - that's the reality we're faced with. :shrug:

[acmavm]

4. Tell that shit to Keith Olbermann and any of the other pundits

who understand what the dems did.

We need to get over making lame excuses for these enablers.

[mzmolly]

15. Tell that "shit" to Al Gore who REALLY understands what "the Dems did"

and why.

[acmavm]

21. Whatever. You must enjoy losing.

bush** announced today that we'll be in Iraq for a llloooooonnnnnngggggg time. You know why he feels safe to say that crap? Because of the spineless dems we sent to Washington to get us out of this mess. But instead, the cowards gave him a blank check and a signal that they're spineless.

Gotta protect that corporate campaign money. That's what they're good at. Nothing more.

There's been a lot of big talk. No action. Not one thing has been accomplished. Nada. Nihil. Zilch. Nothing.

[mzmolly]

29. Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Why did he feel that way? Bush is a windbag.

[Pastiche423]

47. The Al Gore who would have voted NO on the funding?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3289709#3290361


ETA:


Gore Against Funding U.S. Troops Without Timetable for Withdrawal
May 29, 2007 9:39 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis and A'Melody Lee Report: Former Vice President Al Gore tells ABC News that if he were still in the United States Senate, he would have voted "no" on a war funding bill without a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq which passed both house of Congress last week and was signed into law by President Bush.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/gore_against_fu.html

[mzmolly]

52. Al Gore who would have voted no and understood why we put up a bill to vote on.

Yeah, THAT Al Gore.

[jgraz]

6. Ugh...how many times must this lie be debunked?

Say it with me: The Dems NEVER HAD TO SEND A BILL. Never. They could have sat on their hands and the troops would have had to come home.

The rule vote in the House (the one required to bring the funding bill to the floor) was particularly galling. It passed by only 17 votes. Only 7 democrats voted against it. They could have stopped the funding right there, but they wanted to have it both ways. In doing so, they not only took ownership of this war, they also told us loyal democrats that they think we're morons.

And, of course, you keep proving them right by repeating and repeating the pro-war, corporate spin.

[sharp_stick]

11. And how many more times does it need to be said

that shrub would have kept them there, without armor, and without proper weapons until hundreds more of them had been killed. He and his minions would have then blamed the entire fucking mess on the Democrats, the media would have done their typical transcription job and the "average" fucking American would eat it up like they always do.

And before you say it, I know the army would not have to cut back on weapons and armor, but that wouldn't have stopped shrub and the pentagon from stripping them and blaming it on the lack of a bill.

[jgraz]

12. Absolute crap

Bush would have never done that, and if he had, he would have been out of office in a heartbeat. The real subtext of what you're saying is that the political game might have gone against the Dems.

Well, it might have. That's the risk of real leadership. At least they'd have shown that they're willing to hold fast and do what's right instead of what's expedient.

[mzmolly]

17. "Bush would have never done that,..."

What color is the sky in YOUR world?

[jgraz]

23. Easier to see the sky without all that tinfoil

Even so, you know what makes it even more likely that the toddler will throw another temper tantrum? Give in to him.

Bush is a bully. If any actual adult stood up to him, he'd have collapsed like a wet paper towel. If the Dems had said "screw the election, you don't get one more dime", we'd be talking about troop withdrawal right now.

[mzmolly]

26. We have to have Republicans on board and they wanted to see how the "surge"

would go. We've given them four months to wake the f up. As for your notion of talking about a troop withdrawl, I disagree. We'd be blaming Democrats for every casualty in Iraq.

We'll take this up in July with Murtha (a decorated war hero) at the helm. At that time we'll be able to control the message as well and get the American public on board. They are not currently.

[jgraz]

33. No, we don't need Republicans on board

They are the minority party right now, in case you missed that election last year. In the House, they are irrelevant.

The real problem wasn't the rethugs, it was the spineless Dems who couldn't hold together against *. It was a clear failure of Pelosi's leadership. How else does a bill come to the floor with the Speaker and the majority of the ruling party voting against it?

[mzmolly]

34. Republicans are not irrelevant if we are to override a veto.

You are challenged in the fact area, perhaps this is why you are so upset?

[jgraz]

37. Do you have even a basic understanding how the federal government works?

See, we have this thing called a legislative branch. They write the laws. There's also an executive branch. They don't write laws. At all.

* can veto all he wants. The congress is under no obligation to send him a bill he likes. None at all.

[mzmolly]

41. What you posted does not change the facts I have laid out.

1. Only 13% of the public approves of cutting off funding.
2. We need Republicans to override a veto.

[jgraz]

45. Somebody else help her out here -- I'm done

:banghead:

[mzmolly]

51. See ya.

:hi:

[onenote]

59. You're not only done, you're wrong

First, saying that the Democrats never "had to" vote on a funding bill, while technically correct, is about as logical as saying that the Democrats in Congress could all decide to get on planes and move to Maui for the rest of the year. They could do it, but there would be adverse political consequences.

And that's the problem with the "didn't have to vote theory" -- doing nothing was not a politically sustainable option. As the poll you cited points out, the overwhelming majority of the public expected Congress to do something -- fund with a timetable or fund without one. For the "Democrats" to do nothing would've required the Democratic leadership to ignore the will of a very sizable minority of the caucus (the 86 who voted for the bill). The leadership was not going to put those 86 members at risk politically.

Call the political factors that weighed in the process immoral if you like, but they are real and pretending that they don't exist and that the Democrats didn't, as a realistic matter rather than in the fantasy land in which politicians can do whatever they want notwithstanding the wishes of the electorate, have the option that you claim that they had.

[jgraz]

63. Oh great, someone else who can't handle subtlety

Let me explain this as clearly as I can: The fact that the Democrats were under no obligation to send anything is an illustration of just how much power they held, and how much power they pissed away. Nobody thought they were just going to sit on their hands, but they didn't have to cave in completely. The fact that they didn't have the Republicans on board is a complete, dishonest red herring in this case. The Dems held all the cards, they could have crafted the bill in any way they wanted.

As far as your comment that "overwhelming majority of the public expected Congress to do something -- fund with a timetable or fund without one", is ridiculous. It's like saying "the overwhelming majority of the public will either vote Democratic or Republican in 2008." These are two opposing viewpoints. Lumping them together is disingenuous and smacks of intentional spin.

It seem like you and the rest of the apologists are just grasping at ways to justify the funding of this war. Knock down one argument, you bring up another. Knock that one down, the first pops up, whac-a-mole style.

This is typical political spin, just like the Dems "signing ceremony" and Reid's promise to send "an even tougher bill" after the first veto. Remember those? Wanna guess how many times those are going to be brought up when * wants to label something "political theater"?

This was a colossal failure, and the Dems will pay for it with the loss of credibility, loss of political capital and the loss of seats in 2008.

And when they do lose seats, I'm sure you and mzmolly will come back here and explain to us how it was all part of some grand plan. After all, the vast majority of the public was either in favor of the Dems losing seats, or they weren't.

:banghead:

[sharp_stick]

61. So long n/t

[azurnoir]

49. In the real world

the pukes were already starting to prepare a faux shortage of food, the memo was leaked after the vote. Of course there was also all of the usual gloom and mushroom clouds BS about Iran being bandied about, this week they're in talks with Iran about Iraq. The Bush will collapse is a child's dream as is the sole power of Congress, the funding cut off did not end Vietnam in 1973, it had taken years and oh gee a little oil embargo by the Saudi's to end that war maybe you should read about what happened in the proceeding 5 years to that 1968-1973, the Patriot Act was written to make damn sure it did not happen again.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/28/blog_..

edited to add link

[sharp_stick]

60. I call absolute bullshit on this

Bush would never have done that, where the hell have you been the last 6 years. Bush would not hesitate to do it.

[jgraz]

65. Speculation, at best

And, of course, the best way to deal with that kind of bullying is to cave in to it. :sarcasm: (since irony seems to be lost on some people)

Holding up * as some scary, unstoppable bogeyman just makes the Dems look even weaker. Its sad.

[sharp_stick]

72. Of course it's speculation

it hasn't happened yet, dear God.

[jgraz]

73. I said "at best"

At worst, it's straight-up spin and Bush-enabling bullshit.

[jmp]

13. That's an easy enough problem to solve.

And how many more times does it need to be said that shrub would have kept them there, without armor, and without proper weapons until hundreds more of them had been killed.

Attach the funding for the Secret Service detail protecting him and his family to the withdrawal bill ... and let him veto that. We'll see how many US soldiers get killed without adequate arms and armor before someone vetoes his selection as Commander in Chief. :eyes:

[mzmolly]

18. Sounds nice in theory, but it's a ridiculous notion.

Welcome.

[acmavm]

14. That is such a pitiful argument. All that would have had to happen

is to point out that there's plenty of money going to Halliburton every month and the money could have come out of that.

[mzmolly]

19. Ah, yes the old "point out stuff" idea.

You appear to forget who owns the media?

[acmavm]

22. The same people owned the media last November. When we sent these

clucks to go put a halt to the bush** administration and the 'war on terra'.

That didn't stop Ms. Pelosi from becoming Speaker, did it?

[mzmolly]

24. No, because the media loves drama/ratings.

And they would feed the drama of "democrats = death to the troops" at every turn.

[acmavm]

25. Whoa. Well if I've ever heard a good reason to shit on everyone who

voted for you, that's it all right.

[mzmolly]

27. Sorry only 13% of the American public supports pulling funds. Democrats

ARE representing the people by "funding the troops."

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[acmavm]

36. For the last time, and I do mean the last time, there was no way that

money could not be found for the 'troops'. Either by taking money from the no-bid contracts of Halliburton and the rest of them, or from the building fund for the 14 air bases or from the building fund of what is soon to be the world's largest foreign embassy.

The money is there in the Pentagon budget. The money is there. And the only way the the 'troops' would be deprived (like they aren't already?)is if bushco chose to do so.

But by all means, have it your way. They should just keep on giving bush** a blank check. We can play this game every six months, and they can take the coward's way out ever time.

And it looks like they will.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

42. This equivocation makes no sense.

1. If they would have found the money, cutting funds would not have ended the war.
2. Regardless of your "points" your "cut funds" position is not supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

[mzmolly]

16. And you trust that Bush would have done the right thing with a lack of funds?

Or would he have blamed the "blood bath" and "dead soldiers" on Democrats "refusal to fund the defense our nation?"

Sorry, I don't trust Bush, feel free to do so.

[jgraz]

28. OK, you've changed the subject now -- I assume you cede my first point

On your NEW point, I actually do think * would have threatened to leave the troops out there unfunded. However, I highly doubt the Rethug congresscritters would have allowed that.

As far as the Dems being blamed goes, I have two responses:

1) It's immoral to play politics with the lives of our soldiers
1a) Just because * does it, it's still immoral

2) Look at all the stupid fucking things the Rethugs have done since Reagan that just were accepted because they were done with conviction. The Dems need to grow some spines and start doing the same. And if they won't, we should.

Stop enabling, stop excusing. They betrayed the people who elected them, and they shouldn't be allowed to spin their way out of it.

[mzmolly]

31. Sorry it's the same subject.

1) It's immoral to play politics with the lives of our soldiers

Which is why we need to fund the troops.

2) Look at all the stupid fucking things the Rethugs have done since Reagan that just were accepted because they were done with conviction. The Dems need to grow some spines and start doing the same. And if they won't, we should.

I'm thankful we are a diverse party of thought and disagreement, that "blind conviction" got us where we are today.

Stop enabling, stop excusing. They betrayed the people who elected them, and they shouldn't be allowed to spin their way out of it.

Actually only 13% of the "people" want to cut funds, Democrats ARE representing "the people" who elected them. Unless you can show me a poll to the contrary, I maintain that the NYT poll is representative of public opinion on this matter.

[jgraz]

35. You're not debating in good faith any longer.

You're just spewing talking points, not even reading what's posted. This conversation extends over more than one reply or more than one sentence, yet you keep pretending that you can repeat statements that have been completely debunked as if I'm somehow unable to remember what was posted 3 minutes ago.

For example, your first statement was that we didn't have the votes to defund the war. That has been thoroughly debunked (no it hasn't! she says - see I can just write your part at this point). If you still think the majority Democratic house needed the republicans for anything, I suggest you review your constitution and the rules of Congress.

As far as the poll goes, I guess I need to look up the link for you one more time (this makes three, no?). Here's the raw link, which I'm sure you never bothered to check.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

It says the following: 82% say Congress should either stop funds altogether or require benchmarks before funding the war. 63% favor timetables for withdrawal in 2008. 72% disapprove of how * is handling the war, and 51% trust the democrats more than the rethugs on Iraq policy.

Does that sound like a weak negotiating position?

The Dems could have sent * the same bill -- or a far tougher bill -- and represented the view of 82% of the American people. If * continued to veto, the blame would be his. If the Dems can't manage that blame game, they really should give up politics.

Of course, it's all theory now. The Dems caved, you're making excuses for them and, in the meantime, more people are dying.

[mzmolly]

40. The poll you posted proves my point.

"Which of these comes closest to your opinion? Congress should block all funding for the war in Iraq no matter what. Congress should allow funding, but only on the condition that the U.S. sets benchmarks for progress and the Iraqi government are meeting those goals. OR, Congress should allow all funding for the war without any benchmark conditions."

Block All 13%
Fund With Benchmarks 69%
Allow All 15%
Unsure 3%

As for the remainder of your blather it's more empty hot air.

[jgraz]

44. Congratulations - you can match numbers!

And you can do it in blue -- even better. Too bad you have no idea what they mean.

Once again, you pretend as if the only text that exists in this entire debate is you saying "13" and the poll containing the same number. It's either a pathological lack of reading comprehension, or an intentional attempt to...what? Look like a complete moron? (Hint: add 13 and 69 and then look for the number 82 in my posts -- it's like a little puzzle)

At any rate, I'm done trying to figure you out. Have fun living in your little bubble. I'm going to go talk to some adults.

[mzmolly]

50. Why should I add 13 and 69? The 13% figure is what's relevant to the point.

Also, we DID pass a bill with benchmarks, so we satisfied the MAJORITY.

[truedelphi]

39. thanks for the repetition, I hope that someday SOON it will sink in

The Dems never had to send a bill.

[mzmolly]

43. And the troops could have died "because of the Democrats."

Not interested.

[truedelphi]

74. Nope the Dems could show some balls for a change

They need to elarn to granstand a little.

Call up the BBC Le Monde and the Guardian.

Several of the other big news outlets that operate internationally.

Granstand agtain and again until the message gets sent

Read my sig - Edwards says it quite succinctly.

[sampsonblk]

46. Factually incorrect

Not on purpose, of course.

[mzmolly]

53. Which "fact" is incorrect?

:hi:

[sampsonblk]

55. Easy

'we have to have Republicans on board - that's the reality we're faced with'

We most certainly did not have to have them on board. As has been said many many times, our side could have done nothing - and waited Bush out. We had the upper hand by a mile.

[mzmolly]

56. We could have done nothing, but we did what the majority of Americans wanted.

Funding with benchmarks. But, as I've said, in order to get the troops out and set a deadline, we need Republicans on board.

[sampsonblk]

62. Nothing but low-quality spin, but thanks anyway

nt

[Toots]

75. Then why tell the Administration a month in advance that the troops would get the money

No matter what? Your argument just does not hold water...

[zalinda]

5. We all know that no matter what any one says or does

Bush will do what he wants. They could have done a jig and handed him a complete cut off of funds and he would have ignored them. What don't you get? Bush does what he wants when he wants and has most of the media backing him up. As long as the repubs back him the dems are trying to fight with both hands tied behind their backs and hoping on one foot.

Bashing the dems does not make the situation better.

zalinda

[Totally Committed]

7. I agree with acmavm on this one....

They have us whipped. They know they have us whipped. And they will do whatever the hell they damned well please because -- who's gonna stop' em? Not the Democrats!

TC

[azurnoir]

8. Kinda OLD nooz i

But YES lets stay OUTRAGED, those COWARDLY DEMORATS they rote Chimpy a blank check good forever and ever, does that about say it fer ya? Didn't you forget to add nemaybe we should all vote third party or not at all that'll teach 'em.
Got to give credit for producing that outrage, but this is not Free Republic so more subtlety next time:evilgrin:

[doggyboy]

9. bush's statement is a sign of weakness

A real leader doesn't have to repeat himself.

[ClassWarrior]

20. Yes, the Rape-Publicans waited for the Dems' permission...

...to say something rude and arrogant. :eyes:

So do you think Elvis or Anna Nichole piloted the flying saucer that took them all to the undisclosed location where they made that "secret trade deal?"

:rofl:

NGU.

[mzmolly]

32. LOL

:rofl:

[Pastiche423]

48. I do

w/the exception of my Rep and my Dem senator that voted NO.

[leftofthedial]

54. everyone in DC (pretty much) is on the same side

and it ain't *our* side

[unlawflcombatnt]

57. Yes

The Dems caved on Iraq and made a secret, Corporate-favorable trade deal. Are more sell outs in the works?

Let's see. They could renew Bush's Fast-Track Trade authority, so Bush's friends could ship even more American jobs overseas. And if there are still any jobs remaining in the U.S., we could import more low-paid foreign workers to do them. In addition, we could legalize all 12-20 million illegal immigrants, further suppressing American workers wages.

I can't wait for the other shoe to drop.

[AtomicKitten]

58. The Dems have always been crystal clear

that they were not going to cut off funding. Right or wrong in that regard, they don't have the votes for a veto override and were not willing to play chicken with Junior over funding for the troops.

To characterize that move as anything other than what the Dems have already made very clear from the onset is a convenient outlet to vent the anger frustration this war incites. There is no easy solution for this mess and it would be helpful to make an effort to understand that conundrum.

[jgraz]

64. How does Reid's statement to send an even tougher bill after the veto fit in here?

Yes, they signaled their willingness to cave early on, but they also talked tough on many occasions. This smacks of wanting to have it both ways: if they caved, they could say they were always going to cave; and if they stood fast, they could say that was their plan all along.

Why the "signing ceremony"? Why the tough talk from Reid? If they were going to fund the war all along, then * had to know they were bluffing and he could just wait them out. Which is exactly what happened.

[AtomicKitten]

66. perhaps to taunt the netroots?

Seriously, I would say they are vocalizing where the Dems stand on Iraq which is really the point of this dance. You and many here call it "caving," but without enough votes for a veto override or digging in their heels which would effectively stop funding - again something the netroots want and something the Dems have made very clear from the get-go was never going to happen - they made their point and then pulled up their socks and did what they felt they had to do.

Extricating the U.S. from Iraq will be an incremental process, something that the so-called netroots will bitch and moan about every step of the way, but it is what it is. If Tinkerbell could clap her hands and make Iraq a fait accompli, I'd say that's the way to go. Otherwise the netroots can always choose to punish the Democrats for what is perceived as "caving" at the ballot box.

[jgraz]

67. I think the acquiescence to the Rethug framing is what bugs me the most

The Dems sent * a completely toothless bill (no binding timetables) that FUNDS the war and he vetoed it, just to prove he's the biggest bully on the schoolyard. Yet it was the Democrats who were de-funding the troops. It was the Democrats who were "digging in their heels".

The netroots (I guess I'm one of those little tiny roots) aren't bitching about an incremental process. We aren't bitching because we're children who want everything now. We're bitching because many of us have lived through this kind of shit since the Carter administration and we know Democratic weakness when we see it.

We're bitching because we know we need a strong opposition party right now, and we're starting to realize that we don't have that.

[AtomicKitten]

68. the most effective opposition

would have been at the time of the IWR, but I digress; I intend to express my disapproval on that vote at the ballot box in the primary.

Iraq is an epic clusterf*ck now from which extricating ourselves will be no easy task. IMO Gore has it exactly right: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4255.html

[jgraz]

70. No argument there

"intend to express my disapproval on that vote at the ballot box in the primary."

Good point -- I need to change my registration back to democrat.

"Iraq is an epic clusterf*ck now from which extricating ourselves will be no easy task. IMO Gore has it exactly right"

Gore has a lot of things exactly right. I wonder if we could get someone like that to run for President...

[AtomicKitten]

71. :)

[TwilightGardener]

69. I don't think it's connected to the Dems' vote--I think it's a pre-emptive

reaction to the coming September challenge to possibly withdraw more troops than he wants to allow. Get everyone used to the idea now, a low-grade occupation--doesn't sound SO BAD, does it? South Korea's peaceful, etc etc.--THAT'S what I think he's up to here.