WHY DO WAR FUNDING BILLS EVEN GET TO THE FLOOR???

[Zhade]

It's an easy question. The Dem leadership could block them.

They don't.

WHY?

No one can give me a good reason for that, likely because there isn't one.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. They gotta keep their powder dry?

I mean, they might look unAmerican if they showed some backbone. No one likes politicians who stand by their principles, after all; they gotta be pragmatic.

[Zhade]

2. Oh, so it's because they're cowards.

Figures.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. I wouldn't have put it that way, but....

If the epithet fits... :shrug:

[bvar22]

25. The Corporate Agenda Advances.

Nancy was peddling that "need 60 votes in the SENATE" crap yesterday on MTP.
Paraphrase:"We don't have 60 votes in the Senate, so we (the HOUSE) have to give Bush everything he wants."

I was screaming mad.
The Republicans NEVER had 60 votes in the Senate, and they passed horrible legislation AT WILL.

[Swamp Rat]

3. Because some of them have been given pods.

[WillyT]

5. And The FISA Bill, And The MoveOn Denunciation BS, And...

What a record we're gonna have goin into 2008.

Several tsk, tsking non-binding resolutions, and more war.

Perfect.

:puke:

[Zhade]

6. Funny how people won't admit that these bills could have been stopped...

...by simply not bringing them to a vote.

Such denial.

[bluestateguy]

7. The only reason I can give you is that the leadership is trying to protect red-district Democrats

Democrats from red districts who would be pilloried by their Bushbot opponents back home if they acquiesced to such an approach. But that's only about one quarter of the Democratic caucus, and combined with unified Republican support, the war will have a steady stream of unlimited funding.

On another note, I suspect that the Pentagon probably has some kind of a secret plan ready to go to keep the war going in the (unlikely) event that Congress were to cut funding. I also have little doubt that they could find ways to procure private funds to keep the war going as well.

[jacksonian]

8. because nobody wants a Treaty of Versalles moment

where one side was forced into accepting what they can't accept.

Uunfortuantly, you can only stop wars with bipartisan support, unless you want to be responsible for any chaos that results. And some chaos always results - it's not only about ending the war, but living in the world that follows.

[rucky]

9. Or Kyl/Lieberman? Or MoveOn I & II?

BTFOM

[Lucinda]

10. Unless I am mistaken

and that could easily be the case here...the funding bill approves the money and the appropriations bill (not yet passed) will set how that money can be spent. If thats the case, isn't the appropriations bill the one to watch?

Wouldn't it be the appropriations bill that can set the timetable for withdrawal? Pay for that withdrawal, provide payment for military personnel salaries, etc?

[Zandor]

11. Because most Democrats don't want to, and rightfully so

It isn't the right thing to do and it is damaging politically to boot.

[cascadiance]

16. When most Americans don't want to? Then WRONGFULLY SO!

As we say here over and over again, they represent the people, not their corporate sponsors. They should be doing what WE want them to do, or they should give us a damn good reason for not doing so!

[Zandor]

19. Most people don't favor an immediate cutoff of all funding n/t

[WilliamPitt]

23. Um...

No.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101235.html?hpid=topnews

Approve no money: 3%

Reduce funding sharply: 43%

Reduce funding somewhat: 23%

Sum of approval for general funding reduction:

69%

That's a huuuuuuuuuuge boomerang in the numbers. Just this past summer, approval for reducing or ending war funding was at 12%.

So.

[Zandor]

27. "WHY DO WAR FUNDING BILLS EVEN GET TO THE FLOOR???"

That implies Democrats shouldn't let war funding bills get to the floor. It further implies, to me, cutting off funds.

My statement in post 19...

"Most people don't favor an immediate cutoff of all funding"

By the poll, only 3% of Americans say "Approve no money".

There is a sentiment here that the popular and moral thing to do is cut off funding now. The American public disagrees with that, overwhelmingly.

[cascadiance]

32. Congress has ENOUGH indicated a willingness to cooperate at "reduced" fundings or other options...

I think you'll find most Americans realize that the only option to stopping the war now is to simply not present a bill for funding, and then RIGHTLY say that Republicans are standing in the way for partial funding of the war in a more orderly shutdown. Frame it properly and blame it on them, where blame SHOULD BE PLACED!

Even without funding, there's so much funding in the pipeline already, a responsible president should still be able to pull out the troops with no new funding coming in and not jeopardize the safety of those there. If he wants to act irresponsibly and assume that he still has more money coming that's HIS responsibility, NOT congress's!

Bush is NOT a king!

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Only 3% support approving no money...

to spend ANY money, a bill has to get to the floor.

[redqueen]

12. VERY simple: Cowardice. n/t

[Lerkfish]

13. Zhade, we are in agreement again (which I like) excellent question

and so far, I onlyhave heard rationalizations than valid answers.

[radfringe]

14. they fear being blamed when/if another 9-11 happens

it's the fear factor - bush/cheney want something, a way to tie it to 9-11 and terror is devised and congress critters are told we'll blame you

[mmonk]

15. Exactly

It's what I've been saying. It's what Kucinich has been saying. It's what Richardson has been saying. My disappointment over this is pretty firm.

[slackmaster]

17. Because the Democrats have been sucked into knee-jerk reaction mode and have no plan

That's the sad truth.

The only plan that makes sense to me now is a national commitment to ending our dependence on foreign oil.

That would address the Middle East, global warming, pollution, the Bush family, Halliburton, and the stranglehold the big oil companies have over our economy. Not to mention side effects of the above, e.g. the rise of neo-Luddites and flat Earthers.

[The Stranger]

18. Because Nancy Pelosi brings them to the floor.

[Individualist]

20. Why? Because DLC wants the bills to be passed.

[Lerkfish]

22. a better question would be WHY the DLC wants that, if they do?

That's the crux of the matter, IMHO.

[Individualist]

24. The crux of the matter:

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. Through MoveOn, the rise of popular documentaries, blogs, think tanks, etc. It's not just that we talk about real values and innovative strategies. It's because we're talking, period, that the centrists feel threatened.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=721

DLC Watch, the wicked shall not escape justice http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows

[Tesha]

36. The platform of the DLC (and its members) is the *ONE REASON* people have no idea anymore...

The platform espoused by the DLC (and its members) is
the *ONE REASON* people have no idea anymore what
Democrats stand for. Because DLC Democrats stand for
almost exactly the same things the Republicans stand
for, people no longer see a clear difference between
the two main parties.

Tesha

[Gregorian]

26. Well, my BS detector is outdated. Something's wrong with Nancy.

I'm embarrassed. I thought she showed so much promise. That cheeky little grin she gave George was nothing more than a promise. We've been taken for a ride. Again.

[Hydra]

21. Everyone wants to blame it on lack of spine

but I personally blame it on complicity in a broken system.

I suspect most of the Dems in congress are financially benefiting from the war- why string it out until 2013 or longer otherwise? On top of that, they think that every day we spend in Iraq is one more vote for them in 2008.

I have just 1 word for them: Lieberman. That strategy worked out SO WELL, didn't it?

[T.Ruth2power]

28. The

War profiteers want it that way and they control not only the floor but the ceiling, the walls and demand rent from the plebes and obedience from their representatives.

It's easy to see who's being represented in Congress and it ain't us. Follow the money.

[leftchick]

30. there is a very good reason

because they are complicit in the occupation for OIL, Israel and eternal US bases in the Mideast.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Because they do not want to block the funding

That isn't their strategy, nor has it ever been.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Politics.

The Dem leadership figures that as long as the war drags on, it will hurt republicans going to do. After all, what are liberals going to do? Vote Nader? Yeah, right. So they can just go ahead and drag this thing out, more people die, and they pick up a few more seats in congress and the white house, and then maybe if they feel like it they can end the war then and look like heroes.

[backscatter712]

34. If they had any courage whatsoever,

the only funding bills that would make it to the floor at all would be fully-funded withdrawal bills. In other words, funding bills that explicitly mandate that any funds sent to the .mil in Iraq be used solely to redeploy all troops and equipment back to the United States.

But no, our "representatives" in Congress are going to give the dictator in chief another blank fucking check.

Cowards.

Traitors.

Vile.

Despicable.

There are no curses that adequately express my frustration, and yes, boiling hatred for the motherfuckers in Washington who continue to perpetuate this cycle of destruction, with little more to we the people than "Shut the fuck up, peasant!"

If you ask me, the whole government, the entire system is broken, needs to be torn down to the foundation and rebuilt from scratch. Just burn it all.

[Zhade]

35. I hear ya.

Nice to see less rationalizations on this thread (they're all such evasive bullshit).