There's a LOT That Democratic Legislators COULD Have Done About Iraq Funding

[Demeter]

1) Do nothing--they passed a bill, Bush vetoed it, end of game. Also end of war.

2) Pass identical bill, see what the Idiot-in-Chief does with it the second time around. A position of strength, a keeping of the promises, a fulfillment of the mandate.

3) Pass a bill without the timetable, but with such a punitively heavy cost in other things W doesn't like, that he vetoes it again. This is called playing with one's food. Win-win. If we got universal health care and a $15/hour minimum wage, he could keep his f*** war for the next month, and we could go right into impeachment.

4) Impeach. Do not pass GO, etc. This would be the surgical strike. It would also be very effective.

But NO, the DLC felt compelled (don't ask by what or by whom, because neither reason, politics, practicality, nor voter representation played a part in this decision) to cave in. And make no mistake, it was CRAVEN CAVIN'!

The byzantine calculations that went into this decision by the so-called Leadership of the Democratic Party (but I'll miss the Memorial Day picnic!) don't merit consideration. This is people's lives they are giving away for nothing--this is a whole nation and the very concept of democracy that they just destroyed.

[MUAD_DIB]

1. All they needed to do was #1.

In Addition they could have cut off funding for any Mercs (Blackwater) that we pay for.

The majority of Americans don't want the troops to be in Iraq any longer. The Dems were voted in to change the situation in Washington.


Why is that so hard for them to understand?

[Demeter]

2. The $640 Million Question, Man. I Have No Answer

and neither do they, or they would have spread justification like oleo over the airwaves.

[Heath Hatcher]

4. "Why is that so hard for them to understand?"

I'll tell you that, because a majority of americans that don't support the war at the same time don't want to cut the funding for the war to put our troops in danger, if the Democrats cut off funds there will be a political riot and I will be part of the riot. Benchmarks at this point is the only thing that is passable at this point and it shows accountability to the administration. I want a withdrawal as bad as the rest of you but until september comes around it just won't happen. Sorry

[MUAD_DIB]

5. If you cut off funding for the troops then * can't do anything with them. Duh!

The worst that could happen is that they have to return to base. Really.
What would happen if funding was cut

BTW: Do you have the qualitative info on that Majority America wants the troops to remain funded?


Also, by September there will just be another excuse from * to add more troops or keep them in place. Do you believe otherwise?

[Heath Hatcher]

6. Yes

Because the moderate GOP members that come from swing states and districts are already shakeing in the boots about this war, by september when the money runs out and they see that no progress was made in the surge the Moderate GOP members will come on board and join us for a withdrawal bill and when shrub vetos it we will have a veto proof majority ready and waiting.

You got to give it time, you got to have patience, rome wasn't built in a day and neither ending a war.

And I do have proof regarding the funding, read the polls. Every poll I have seen about cutting the funding for the troops the american people are luckwarm on it at best, there like me and they don't want the troops to go into battlefield without the money for equiptment. I know that my friend Kris is serving in Iraq as a SEAL and I want when he goes to fight there I want the money there to keep him safe.

[TheWraith]

8. You want to put money on that?

Can you guarantee that if funding were cut off, Bush would just meekly withdraw, rather than finding a way to leave them there and blame it on the Dems?

[On the Road]

3. The Democrats Control the Committees

and have a majority in both houses, but when it comes to ending the war, they have a functional minority. In the Senate, for example, it requires Lieberman's vote to hold a simple majority. But they are being expected to act as a unified block.

[TheWraith]

7. Oh really?

1. That would result in defunding, which the majority of the public does not support, and it would be handing the Repubs a major PR victory.

2. The bill really only passed the first time because it was generally known that it would be vetoed. If passing it again was the final policy of the Dem leadership, we'd probably lose 3-4 moderate Dem votes in the Senate, and it would stall out there.

3. And watch it get vetoed again, and then we lose the moderate Dems, as above. What you need to remember is that while the Dems may have a (narrow) majority, the most stiffly anti-war faction is outnumbered when you add up the Republicans and the handful of moderates who aren't willing to defund.

4. There's no way in hell that impeachment is practical right now. Nor would it be very effective: even if it passed in the House, which isn't certain at all, we wouldn't have the votes to convict in the Senate, meaning that not only would Bush stay in office, but we'd have burned our last card in dealing with him. There would be nothing that could be threatened anymore.

And to answer your implied question about why they did it, I would assume that they believe in September, once the "surge" has firmly proven itself to be a disaster, there will be sufficient Republicans wanting to distance themselves from Bush and the war that they may be able to override a veto and get the timetables passed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. blah blah blah.

"That would result in defunding, which the majority of the public does not support, and it would be handing the Repubs a major PR victory."

It would have ended the war, which the majority of the public supports, and would have handed the Dems a major PR and moral victory.

[Heath Hatcher]

10. But the american people don't want the funding to be cut

Americans want the government wants a plan in place that would get the troops out of Iraq but at the same time keep the troops funded and that can happen. We have to be patient I mean alot of us know that Vietnam was a disaster but look how long it took us to withdraw from there (of course we all know that this war won't go on for 10 plus years)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. You illustrate exactly the problem.

You, and apparently most polled people, are under the misconception that pulling funding from the war will pull funding, supplies etc from the troops.

Learn something.

[Heath Hatcher]

13. I don't appreciate your rudeness towards me

Just because I don't agree with everyone here at DU on funding you get to be ignorant towards me? no that dosen't fly with me I know just as much as you in the war.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. I don't appreciate the pro-war bullshit...

that cutting the funding for the war would cut the funding for the troops.

[Heath Hatcher]

15. Yeah i'm pro-war

Before I go on what makes me pro-war because I want troops to get there money, because I want a real plan to get out and not simply cutting the funds? is that what makes me pro-war?

Serious man calm down, step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath because you need it, not being rude or anything i'm not like that but you need to calm down.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. If you're for funding, you're for the war.

Simple as that.

[Heath Hatcher]

17. I'm not for this war

The troops need the funds, it's as simple as that and i'm not backing down my answer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. The troops get paid either way.

You're not supporting the troops, you're supporting the war. Which hasn't done shit but kill the troops.

[Heath Hatcher]

19. How many freaking I must tell you

I...DO...NOT...SUPPORT...THIS...WAR!!!!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Then you can't be supporting the funding.

This is not a difficult concept to understand.

[Heath Hatcher]

21. Yes you can, alot of people do.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. No, sorry.

You can't say support funding for the war, and then say you're against the war.

It's a steaming load of bullshit.

[Heath Hatcher]

23. No it's not

There's nothing wrong with giving the troops the money they need to fight in the battlefield

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. It's like saying you don't support cocaine use...

and then going out and buying large quantities of cocaine.

Who are you trying to kid?

[Heath Hatcher]

25. All right now your just not making sense now

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. LOL, you accuse me of not making sense.

You're the one that says you don't support the war, but want to keep paying for it.

:crazy:

[Heath Hatcher]

27. Because I feel that the troops need the equipment

Thats it. The fucking debate is over because it's obious your now level headed enough to have a discussion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. You claimed you understood the war.

I even explained it to you upthread.

Cutting the war funding would still supply the troops with every thing they needed. The only thing that would happen is the troops would come home.

Like I said, learn something.

[Heath Hatcher]

29. I don't need to learn anything

Thank you, now the discussion is over.

Have a good day.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. So then you realize that cutting the funding...

still provides everything the troops need.

Which is exactly what I thought.

[onenote]

34. I don't know if it does or doesn't.

I'd like to see some more information. If you have a link, that would be helpful.

[onenote]

30. well, then, a lot more people support the war than you think

Can't have it both ways. The polls clearly indicate that while a majority would like to see a timetable for ending the war, a majority does not favor immediate defunding. So, under your interpretation, chimpy can declare that a majority still is "pro-war".

Or you could recognize that the world isn't black and white and the public, which supported the war is massive numbers when it started, has been changing its view of the war, but hasn't gotten all the way to the point where those of us who never supported it in the first place are (and have been).

Even if its true that failing to pass a supplemental approps bill for the war wouldn't leave the troops in the field with any less support (and if it wouldn't, why exactly would the war end?), the fact is that the public still believes it and presenting a strong case as to why it isn't so (rather than just saying it isn't so) is the way to move the public the next step closer to the position of those of us who want the war to end asap.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Actually, no.

The vast majority of Americans clearly support ending the war.

Why then, do most not support cutting funds? It's a contradiction, ain't it?

Well, the obvious answer is they don't understand what cutting the funding means.

[Tellurian]

11. How hard is it to understand they need a VETO PROOF Majority?

Sure, they are a functional majority...but they need 2/3 of a majority to nullify Bush's Veto.

Crank on the Republicans not the Dems..They are doing the best they can..

[Demeter]

35. How Hard Is It To Understand That One Must Keep Fighting?

Bush has demonstrated complete comprehension of this basic tenet. And it can't be that hard to outsmart him. His money cannot buy everything.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. If the funding expires, Bush will just find another way to fund it

There's so much money in the Pentagon that Bush can take money out of other things and put it toward Iraq. Sure some of it may not be legal, but that won't stop the Bush gang.

As far as impeachment goes, you won't get 67 votes for conviction under any circumstances. Like it or not too many Republic Senators have safe seats.

[Demeter]

36. Make Bush Do His Own Dirty Work--Don't Do It For Him!

and with any luck, in his desperation, he'll tick off a few more people and we'll get that critical mass.