"We do not have enough votes to override Bush's veto at this time."

[grytpype]

That is all the Dems need to say right now. Emphasis on AT THIS TIME.

Because the Dems DID pass a bill with mandatory timelines! Bush vetoed it, anyone remember that?

The bill was considered a remarkable achievement. People were amazed they got it done. Most of you were against it because it left troops in Iraq as late as March 2008, and you wanted them miracled home right this minute!

Bush vetoed that bill. Are we supposed to send him another bill he will veto? I'd say there's at least a 50/50 chance the Dems would get blamed for cutting off funding to the troops. And that is NOT the majority position folks, I know a lot of people here think funding should be cut off immediately, but that just does not have majority support. And we absolutely must stay on the right side of public opinion.

But folks, I say there will inevitably be a veto-proof majority for timelines. As the war grinds on, there will be relentless and increasing pressure on Republicans to break from Bush. Even rats are smart enough to leave a sinking ship, and a Republican is at least half as smart as a rat.

And we NEED that bipartisan veto-proof majority, folks, and not just to get around Bush. We need it because the withdrawal is going to be a disaster. Assume the withdrawal is as fucked up as EVERYTHING ELSE that has happened over there. I think it's going to be the worst part of the war so far. We need a big fat bipartisan commitment to that policy, because if the Dems get blamed or it they are really gonna take a thumpin.

So repeat after me:

"We do not have enough votes to override the President's veto AT THIS TIME!!!!!"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. We have enough votes to stop financing of the war

No bill financing the war=no war

[grytpype]

4. NO, we don't

There is not a majority in Congress that would vote to stop financing the war.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. If enough Dems in the House or 51 Senators showed some spine we would

The potential is there. The question is whether some who profess to oppose the war have the political courage to synchronize their actions with their polished and appealing rhetoric.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Be that as it may -- we have to keep holding our congresscritters' feet to the fire.

Including the Republican ones. The pressure has to be relentless. The upside to this is that it might energize the antiwar movement further, and it also might give a boost to the antiwar Dem candidates, especially those that are not among the triangulating senators.

[msongs]

3. repeat after me: if bush vetos a bill, do NOT send him a new one nt

[bullimiami]

5. override his veto? is that a joke? he is the one that needs the money.

the congress doesnt 'need' to sweeten it up enough so he likes the way it tastes.

they should stick to their principals. his 2 choices are to accept what they offer or shut the war down.

[earthside]

6. "Hundreds More Dead AT THIS TIME!!!"

Since the Democratic leadership is going to send Bush a lot more money for the war and occupation, we will get to witness hundreds more U.S. troops killed in Iraq ... thousands more wounded.

Of course, there are those Iraqis that are going to be killed and maimed, too, but, hey, just repeat: "We do not have enough votes to override the President's veto AT THIS TIME!!!!!"

The plain fact is that the Congress does not have to send a war appropriation to Bush. Period.

If the Dems would state their position clearly -- the same position as most Americans -- they could end this horrible war by doing 'Nothing'.

So repeat after me: "Democrats in Congress -- Do Nothing and Bring the Troops Home!"

[dflprincess]

7. Then let his veto stand

n/t

[Cronopio]

8. "Are we supposed to send him another bill he will veto?"

YES! Make him get on the record again and again. If he vetoes the same funding bill 20 times, it is the same as making him say "I don't give a rat's ass about the troops" 20 times for everyone in the world (including the troops) to hear.

When the Democrats cave like this, it gives Bush credibility and the Democrats get on the record as supporters of the war. They are already getting blamed for the war, and deservedly.

"And we NEED that bipartisan veto-proof majority, folks ..."

That will never happen. Don't kid yourself into waiting for it. There are powerful interests (far beyond Bush) that want the occupation to continue, and if the Democrats try to beat them in the system these interests long since bought off, they will lose.

The only chance for Dems and progressive now is to stop playing tactics and start standing on principles. Send Bush the same legislation to veto, over and over again. At the very least, it will annoy the shit out of him.

[Honeycombe8]

9. Yeah...point well taken. I'm just freshly disappointed, and others...

feel more strongly than I do.

The keen disappointment in this bill will somewhat wear off in time, I supposed. I get your point, and the point of others. It's strategy. It requires the Dems to take a loss right now (and it IS a loss), in order to avoid a bigger loss down the road.

There are more U.S. congressional seats coming up for vote in the fall, aren't there? Maybe the Dems will pick up a few more seats?

[On the Road]

10. This Was the Trap.

The likelihood of defeat was pointed out by as much of a stalwart as Paul Krugman. It is not great for the Democrats, but they pretty much HAD to pass a bill requiring withdrawal.

Everyone insisting that the Democrats "show strength" and pass the same bill are not recognizing two things:

(1) The Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate. The voting is:

49 Democrats
49 Republicans
2 Independents
1 Tiebreaker (if necessary)

One of the independents is Joe Lieberman. The tiebreaker is Dick Cheney. And that is not counting all the nervous southern conservatives, DLCers, and red-staters who were just barely brought along to vote for the first bill (which apparently took some negotiation).

(2) Consider what happens *if* the same bill can be passed (which is not a given) and Bush vetos it again (which is).

This is a game of political chicken that everyone seems to be counting on the Democrats to win. This is highly questionable. The prospect of the troops losing funding may not look the same to the public when the money actually runs out. As that time approaches, defections are inevitable. After the issue has built up to a crescendo, a political loss would be much much worse than the status quo and may completely reverse the political momentum. What they actually passed, although it is probably toothless, does give them the option of revisiting the issue. Things are still in flux.

I do not doubt Nancy Pelosi passion or her judgment on this issue. I reserve my scorn for the minority who are making it impossible to stay unified.

[IndianaGreen]

12. That's a bullshit excuse! All Dems have to do is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING! Don't pass anything!

Republicans don't have the votes to pass a war funding bill. There is no Constitutional requirement for the Democrats to submit another bill to Bush. Just sit on your ass and let the money run out!