"The Democratic Congress did what they could -- they DIDN'T have the votes" (Al Gore)

[snowbear]

He said he agrees with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- that while it wasn't the popular thing to do --- they did what they HAD to do.

Wow.. there's only been a small handful of us saying that here!!

[AnOhioan]

1. I respect Al Gore but on this one he is wrong.

[snowbear]

3. That's what's great about DU... We're allowed to disagree.

Great interview!! ~~~

[Zodiak]

25. I concur

Much more could be done. Much much more.

But I have a feeling he is supporting the leadership for a reason other than supporting the leadership's position. Nothing definitive or empirical, just a feeling.

[IndyOp]

26. The bill with benchmarks would've funded the occupation until March 2008 -

The one they passed gives Satan the money to continue the holocaust for 3 months.

I get the fact that it would be preferable to end the holocaust now. I am with Kucinich, Feingold, Sanders...

Still, I prefer a bill that forces Satan to come back on bended knee in 3 months as opposed to one with benchmarks that they could lie about meeting and would fund him until March 2008.

That is what Randi Rhodes said today...

Now WE have 3 months to PUSH OUR DAMNED CONGRESS CRITTERS TO CONSIDER WHAT RESPECT FOR LIFE MEANS...

:grr:


An unidentified Iraqi child gazes at an Agence France-Presse photographer outside his home in the impoverished Shi’ite-stronghold of Sadr City, Baghdad, on Wednesday.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/IndyOp/60

[onenote]

45. referring to iraq as a "holocaust" deprives that term of its meaning

Words have meaning and power. And misusing them doesn't help.

[IndyOp]

96. Respectfully, I disagree that I misused the word. How many people equal a holocaust?

I think a million dead Iraqis since the 2003 invasion is a holocaust.

ONE MILLION EXCESS DEATHS since March, 2003 - is a very fair estimate at this point. The Lancet study published in October 2006 estimated 655,000 -- and they stopped collecting data in July 2006, nearly a year ago. Their estimate did NOT include Fallujah and they instructed their surveyors NOT to go into neighborhoods in which they did not feel safe.

October, 2006: Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates

As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion.

The estimates were derived from a nationwide household survey of 1,849 households throughout Iraq conducted between May and July 2006. The results are consistent with the findings of an October 2004 study of Iraq mortality conducted by the Hopkins researchers. Also, the findings closely reflect the increased mortality trends reported by other organizations that utilized passive methods of counting mortality, such as counting bodies in morgues or deaths reported by the news media. The study is published in the October 14, 2006, edition of the peer-reviewed scientific journal, The Lancet.

“As we found with our previous survey, the majority of deaths in Iraq are due to violence—although we also saw a small increase in deaths from non-violent causes, such as heart disease, cancer and chronic illness. Gunshots were the primary cause of violent deaths. To put these numbers in context, deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003,” said Gilbert Burnham, MD, PhD, lead author of the study and co-director of the Bloomberg School’s Center for Refugee and Disaster Response. “Our total estimate is much higher than other mortality estimates because we used a population-based, active method for collecting mortality information rather than passive methods that depend on counting bodies or tabulated media reports of violent deaths. Though the numbers differ, the trend in increasing numbers of deaths closely follows that measured by the U.S. Defense Department and the Iraq Body Count group.”

Key points of the study include:

• Estimated 654,965 additional deaths in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006

• Majority of the additional deaths (91.8 percent) caused by violence

• Males aged 15-44 years accounted for 59 percent of post-invasion violent deaths

• About half of the households surveyed were uncertain who was responsible for the death of a household member

• The proportion of deaths attributed to coalition forces diminished in 2006 to 26 percent. Between March 2003 and July 2006, households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition

• Mortality data from the 2006 study reaffirms 2004 estimates by Hopkins researchers and mirrors upward trends measured by other organizations

• Researchers recommend establishment of an international body to calculate mortality and monitor health of people living in all regions affected by conflict

The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These same survey methods were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions. For the Iraq study, data were collected from 47 randomly selected clusters of 40 households each. At each household selected, trained Iraqi surveyors collected data on the number of births and deaths that occurred in the household between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2006. To be considered a household member, the deceased had to have lived in the home at least three months prior to death. When interviewers asked to see a death certificate at households reporting a death, it was presented in 92 percent of instances. The survey recorded 1,474 births and 629 deaths among 12,801 people surveyed. The data were then applied to the 26.1 million Iraqis living in the survey area.

While the survey collected information on the manner of death, the study did not examine the circumstances of the death, such as whether the deceased was actively involved in armed combat, terrorism, criminal activity or caught in the middle of the conflict. The study outlines other limitations of the survey method, including the hazards of collecting data during a conflict.

The results from the new study closely match the finding of the group’s October 2004 mortality survey. The earlier study, also published in The Lancet, estimated over 100,000 additional deaths from all causes had occurred in Iraq from March 2003 to August 2004. When data from the new study were examined, it estimated 112,000 deaths for the same time period of the 2004 study. The new survey also found that the number of deaths attributed to coalition forces had declined in 2006, though overall households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition. Responsibility could not be attributed in 45 percent of the violent deaths.

According to the researchers, the overall rate of mortality in Iraq since March 2003 is 13.3 deaths per 1,000 persons per year compared to 5.5 deaths per 1,000 persons per year prior to March 2003. This amounts to about 2.5 percent of Iraqi’s population having died as a consequence of the war. To put the 654,000 deaths in context with other conflicts, the authors note that during the Vietnam War an estimated 3 million civilians died overall; the Congo conflict was responsible for 3.8 million deaths; and recent estimates are that 200,000 have died in Darfur over the past 31 months.

[onenote]

105. and do you think that the killing will stop when we leave?

I want the US to get out of Iraq immediately. Tomorrow if it was possible. But I don't harbor any illusions that when we get out the killing will stop. What will stop is Americans dying for a lie.

[IndyOp]

111. I think that the killing can come to a stop fairly quickly if

Arab nations send troops/police and train an Iraqi police force instead of an Iraqi army. Iraq doesn't need an army -- it needs police and basic services - water & electricity & health care. If the U.S. returns Iraq's oil to the Iraqi's and neighboring Arab states help the Iraqis they can recover -- their nation may change dramatically, even splitting apart, but peace can come quickly. Iraqis I've read and listened to have said this all along. It is the U.S. troops that are inciting the violence, get the U.S. troops out and the violence will drop dramatically.

Remember that we were lied to about Vietnam -- we were told that the Vietnam War was a Civil War between North & South. It wasn't. The Vietnamese -- all of them, North & South -- refer to that war as "The American War."

We were told that leaving Vietnam would lead to a total collapse - it did not. We were told that neighboring countries would fall - they did not.

The U.S. caused the Iraqi genocide -- starting way back with the Gulf War, the immediate aftermath in which the U.S. told Iraqis we would support them if they rose up against Hussein but when the rose up we did not help, the deadly economic sanctions and regular bombings throughout the Clinton administration. Genocide through 3 Presidents.

[onenote]

112. Yeah, Vietnam became a paradise as soon as we left

I'm glad we got out of Vietnam, but if you think that as soon as we left, everyone in the NOrth and SOuth hugged each other and sang kumbaya, you're sadly mistaken.

Between 1950 and 1974 fewer than 1000 Vietnamese immigrants arrived in the US. After the fall of Saigon in 1975, over 125,000 arrived. This picked up even more a few years later, with over 1/2 million VIetnamese arriving in the USA. This represented only a 1/4 of the more than 2 million South Vietnamese who left the country after the fall of Saigon -- around 10 percent of the population of South Vietnam.

No, the dominos didn't fall -- but to say that peace broke out quickly after the US left Vietnam is to ignore that when the South Vietnamese put down their arms, the suffering did not end. Moreover, while the fighting stopped because no one was supplying the South Vietnamese army any more, it seems unlikely that the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis will find themselves in a similar situation.

[IndyOp]

129. No where in my post did I say that

"Vietnam became a paradise as soon as we left".

Nor did I say that

"as soon as we left, everyone in the NOrth and SOuth hugged each other and sang kumbaya".

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

133. The Holocaust was direct murder or enslavement followed by murder.

This is war. An unjust war, no doubt, but a war nonetheless.

Comparing it to a systematic, cold-blooded slaughter is asinine.

[IndyOp]

137. The horror of the WWII holocaust is the extreme power differential between

death camp detainees and their jailers/murderers. When we say that someone was killed in cold blood we are saying that they had no way to defend themselves.

There is similar horror in war crimes in which troops of any army kill unarmed civilians - which has happened in every war that has ever occurred - to try to terrify the civilians into submission.

In World War I about 90% of the casualties were soldiers and 10% were civilians. In "modern" warfare 90% of the casualties are civilians and 10% are soldiers (so say Howard Zinn and Gino Strada author of "Green Parrots A War Surgeon's Diary").

So, "modern" warfare includes a whole lot more killing of people who can't defend themselves - so much so that we need to completely revise our understanding of "war" to reflect the fact that the vast majority of killings are in cold blood.

To call what has happened in Iraq a "war" is absurd. War is what happens when two roughly equally well-supplied nations send their soldiers try to kill each other (it used to be about taking and holding land, but now it is about who has the highest body count - according to some military strategists).

Iraq was attacked specifically because we knew they had no weapons. WE KNEW IRAQ HAD NO WEAPONS after we blew their weapons up with bombs during the Gulf War, after we had inspectors who tracked down the remainder during the years between the Gulf War and the invasion and methodically destroyed them. Shock & awe was a "battle" in no sense of the word - it was killing people who could not defend themselves in a way that virtually guaranteed we would lose no personnel.

If, instead of sending men, women, the elderly, teens and babies to death camps to put them to death in gas chambers, the Nazis had sent SS troops into ghettos in which the same impoverished people lived to kill them with bullets and bombs it still would've been a holocaust.

The extremely lopsided death in Iraq tells the story of genocide:

U.S. Troops dead: 3,400+

Iraqis dead: 600,000-1,000,000 (I believe that 1,000,000 is a very fair estimate at this point)

Ratio US to Iraqi Dead is now coming close to 1:300

It is systematic, cold-blooded slaughter - with prayers for the souls of each precious person killed in cold blood in World War II - much of what is happening now is cold-blooded slaughter.

The only occasion I know of in which Jews armed themselves and fought the Nazis was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

What is happening in Iraq now is very much equivalent to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - which I would include as part of the holocaust.

I say this with respect to all whose lives have been devastated by violence and to the generations afterwards who feel the aftershocks of that violence over and over again.

SS men during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

[The Magistrate]

149. The Problem With This Logic, Ma'am

Is that greatest proportion by far off the Iraqis being killed are being killed by other Iraqis, not by U.S. armed forces. Most of the killing is being done by militia bodies serving as the armed edge of segments if the Iraqi populace who are hostile to one another. It is impossible to discern, in the killings such groups carry out, what proportion of the corpses are those of hostile militia members, or merely people of the wrong sort in the wrong place, but it is quite certain some proportion of these deaths are at least people one militia body feels fairly certain are members of a hostile militia, and that they are in some instances correct. To simply divide the projected Iraqi death total by the U.S. death total and claim that the U.S. is killing three hundred Iraqis for every U.S. soldier killed is absurd. Nothing of the sort is occuring.

[IndyOp]

153. There would be no civil war if the U.S. had never invaded.

Who has trained and equipped many of the insurgents? We have - in training a new Iraqi army we have trained many of "the insurgents". CIA and MI5 have been sent in to whip up fury among factions that were previously peaceful.

Sorry, but there is no way I am going to let the U.S. off the hook for the horror happening in Iraq. Prior to our campaign to destroy the nation that our elite could not control the "sectarian strife" was in most places non-existent and in other places pretty damn calm.

We did this -- we kicked off the events and we are responsible.

It started with GHWB goading Hussein into invading Saudi Arabia.

It continued with U.S. soldiers burying 65,000 Iraqi soldiers alive in trenches in the desert during the Gulf War - when over a few days time double the bomb power used in World War II was dumped on their country destroyed roads, bridges, mosques, health centers, homes, facilities to process food.
Arms & Things http://journals.democraticunderground.com/IndyOp/64

It rolled on when Bush told Iraqi people to rise up against Hussein and promised them we would support them - when they did rise up, we didn't support
Through nearly a decade of extreme, harsh economic sanctions that other UN nations BEGGED be lifted -- deaths of 100,000's of the most vulnerable dying - children, elderly, the sick.

Shock & awe and a million more dead.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/IndyOp/43

In 15 Years (1991-2006), the US has caused/contributed to 1,405,000 Iraqi deaths
Persian Gulf War: 150,000
Gulf War Aftermath: Many thousands
UN Sanctions: Primary cause of 600,000 deaths
Iraq War: 655,000

[ce qui la baise1]

39. I don't think we will know just yet. Bush has already

given himself a time line. Sept.

[karynnj]

102. Unless your goal is to defund immediately, he is right

I only heard one relatively not detailed set of Gore comments on what to do in Iraq about 6 months ago. He was not for immediate withdrawal - and was not convinced a deadline was the answer.

The House and Senate did an incredible job. The Senate got 51 votes to pass a bill putting all Democrats (Leiberman is not a Democrat) on record voting for a timeline for withdrawal. It was predictably vetoed.

It would have been nicer to have a bill with some teeth, but this may have been the most that they could get. The idea that they could pass the first bill a second time and send it back was not realistic. As they neared the time the money was actually needed, they would lose some of those who voted for it the first time.

[SaveElmer]

2. I agree with Al...

But I think I hear the distinctive sound of exploding brain...

I don't think some Al supporters are gonna like this much!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

15. We got Katrina funding, Vet. Med., the Minimum wage hike, and more.

All without a peep from the noise machine.

[NCarolinawoman]

22. Yes, Bush's war was going to continue anyway and we would have gotten NOTHING.

We are now gathering together the resources to fight another day.

Call me a hard-nosed pragmatist; but I remember well the complexities of what brought an end to the war in Viet Nam. Those necessary ingredients do not exist right now. No rending of one's garments can change that, unfortunately.

[puebloknot]

27. What difference does it make to the dead?

[Lost-in-FL]

4. ...

:popcorn:

[snowbear]

Would you like a drink with that popcorn?

LOL! ~~

[Lost-in-FL]

10. How about a whiskey...

Things has been pretty rough around here lately.

[Cameron27]

5. He sure did, and

I reluctantly agree with him. They didn't have the votes, but I wish they went down fighting. I'm still a Democrat though with no plans of leaving the party:-)

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

14. Exactly right.

I wish they went down fighting as well. But they deserve the rage they are receiving. It will concentrate their attention.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

28. I couldn't agree more. They need to insure that they avoid all manners of

belt-way, self congratulatory back patting and get back to the business of "we, the people."

Focus. MKJ

[terip64]

6. I agree. n/t

[NoodleBoy]

7. I think you and I should start dating, Larissa, because it seems we agree on everything

so how's about Friday?

[snowbear]

9. Boy, I dunno..

I play hockey, so I can check you on the boards if you get out of line..

That was a great interview.. too short, but still, a good one!

[NoodleBoy]

12. word.

[doggyboy]

8. I continue to remain convinced

that Gore is a genius

[Grateful for Hope]

11. I agree with this. He IS a genius. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. Quite possibly, but this isn't evidence of that.

Al Gore is certainly an extremely talented man - you don't get to be vice president of the US without being one (modulo Dan Quayle, possibly...) and may well be a genius for all I know to the contrary.

But what he's said here is too obviously true to be evidence of genius in itself, I think. It's just primary-school level maths. Given how many people have failed to do it, all credit to Gore, but it's still not evidence of genius.

[WCGreen]

13. I sure took a lot of grief for saying basically the same thing

a few days ago...

But then again, passions were high, people were leaving DU, the Party, moving to Canada...

It's the old warhourses like Al who have been there in the trenches and know what is possible and what is wishfull thinking...

[FrenchieCat]

16. leaving DU, the Party, moving to Canada...

:rofl:

[snowbear]

17. I'll send the mounties out to get you if you head to Canada!

You're not goin' anywhere.. we need you here!

[FrenchieCat]

18. Not, not me....Larissa! I was commenting on poster's comment

cause I found it funny that so many people were packing up based on "what have you done for me like today?" mentality.

Me....I'm not going anywhere, although I suspect that there are quite a few here on DU who wouldn't mind helping me pack my bags! :lol:

[WCGreen]

20. I'm sure there are those who wouldn't let the door hit me on the

ass when I was shoved toward the door...

It's tough being a left leaning left of center centerist...

[FrenchieCat]

24. Unfortunately, it is always tough when one has an opinion that does not go along

with the majority. It is really much easier to say things that everyone agrees with. Therefore, you showed courage (a rare commodity, these days) if that's any solace!

[WCGreen]

29. At this stage of the game, I don't really let it bother me as much as

it once did...

[WCGreen]

19. I can't even get a passport now....

My given name doesn't match the name on my social security card...

[snowbear]

23. Nah.. that's not true WC... We'd miss you if you headed out..

Really..

And btw.. Why doesn't your SSN and name match up?

[WCGreen]

30. When I was a kid, I wanted to get a job and applied for a

SS# using the name everyone called me...

Were talking like when I was 14....

I never knew the name everyone called me was my middle name...

Tells you something about how close I was to my folks...

Funny part of it is I spoke with an attorney and he suggested I legally change my name instead of trying to correct the mistake with SS....

[ljm2002]

103. Changing your name legally is one avenue...

...I was told the same thing when I ran into a similar snag. In my case, my SS still showed my maiden name, I had long since married and divorced, and had a birth certificate and an expired Driver's License, but they insisted they had to see paperwork showing that my name had actually changed -- i.e. my marriage certificate. There were some complications in retrieving that document, and at one point I was advised to go back to my maiden name and that would solve it. I declined, having by that time carried my married name for over 25 years.

Well long story short, eventually I got that marriage certificate and was able to correct the SS situation. You should keep working it until you are able to get an updated SS card and your passport -- both are very useful documents to have.

[BootinUp]

21. Gore was a skillful legislator

I'd recommend taking his word on it.

[Skip Intro]

31. K&R! They did what they could within their current power.

That's what I've felt all along, and hearing Gore say that tonight did me a lot of good.

They've been in office five months. They need momentum. I want to help with that.

[Lochloosa]

32. Thank you Al.

It was not going to happen....period.

[Uncle Joe]

33. I've always thought of Al as the

optimum blend of idealism and realism, and I still do.

Kicked and recommended

[Berry Cool]

34. I like Al

but I still disagree with him on that.

[justinrr1]

35. Finally some logic around here

maybe people on this board will stop hating on some of our candidates and congressman now that a man they greatly respect has said this.

[Uncle Joe]

37. And Al is the kind of guy

who would defend to the death your right to disagree with him.

He even posted along with his website, a website that disagrees with him on the issue of climate change, in his book "The Assault on Reason" such is his love for democracy.

[info being]

78. It's that realism bit that gets us in such trouble

Democratic "realism" = "cowardice"

[Telly Savalas]

93. Was it unrealistic to think that they could have gotten more leverage

by putting some of the non-germane items into different bills to either get Bush to veto popular legislation or get them passed to leave room for other concessions?

Is it unrealistic to think that they could have put measures into the bill to demand accountability as to where the $100 billion gets spent, instead of offering a carte blanche for more Halliburton corruption?

Is it unrealistic for them to have suggested that we repeal Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy to pay for this funding? If this had been spending for health care, everyone would have asked where the money's coming from. Nobody asked that question for the war funding.

Was it unrealistic for them to have first sent Bush a version of the bill which didn't allow Bush to waive the benchmark provisions?

[creeksneakers2]

36. I deeply admire Gore's courage here

I also have to applaud the courage of the Democrats in Congress. Everybody says the Democrats caved out of weakness, but all the pressure, from the majority of Americans and especially from Democrats, was for sticking with the deadline approach. There was no political upside for the Democrats to give in to Bush. Many did vote against the final bill. I believe those who did vote to send Bush the money did it out of conscience.

[info being]

79. Courage to be weak?

[mzmolly]

38. I am among the handful, after I cooled off a bit, I came to this realization.

Thanks for posting, one more rec.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

40. I may be new, but I don't buy this

Politics is a game. Bush played us like chess. We lost because our leaders played politics with human lives.

Al Gore also said on Larry King last week that he would "assess the situation" if he were elected President before withdrawing troops.

What does it mean? I like Al a lot, but I hope he doesn't return to his old ways.

[info being]

80. Thanks for bringing this to my attention

I didn't realize Al said this. Maybe he's just like the others...as a politician anyway.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

128. no problem info being n.t

[Larkspur]

41. The Dem Leaders main problem is that the LOSE the Media battle

all the time. Bush won the Media battle over this bill and helped frame the Dems as weak. I expect them to ramp it up to show that Dems support the war too.

True, Congress only has limited power, but they need an aggressive and innovative Media campaign to torpedo Bush & Rove. Instead, we get the Dem Leaders borrowing a page from Karl Rove to use against us Dem activists. Rove's playbook doesn't work on us because unlike the Right wingnuts, we are not sheep.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. And I respectfully disagree with

VP Gore

[Martin Eden]

43. The Democrats don't want to be blamed for what happens in Iraq.

And I can't say I blame them. Consider this scenario:

The Democratic congressional majority, through the power of the purse, forces a timeline for withdrawal of the bulk of US troops from Iraq.

The ongoing civil war descends into even worse violence, Islamic terrorists thrive amid the chaos, and this result is played up as a major US defeat for which the Democrats will incessantly be blamed for decades to come.

Nevermind that this result is just as probable whether we pull out now or five years from now and that the real blame lies with the lying sack of shit that got us into this quagmire in the first place -- if the Dems force a withdrawal, they will be blamed for what happens afterwards.

Iraq is like a millstone around the neck of the Republican Party. Why would the Democrats relieve them of that burden and take the blame for the inevitable failure of this misbegotten mission?

Of course, this is another of those 800 pound gorillas in the room that no one -- not even Al Gore -- can talk about.

[sampsonblk]

44. unconvinced-nt

nt

[madfloridian]

46. No, they did not communicate well with their grassroots.

They failed us on that. I see no reason to give Bush a blank check. Even to attack other countries, is my understanding.

I disagree, it was a very bad bill.

Bush has 4 months of carte blanche in Iraq.

[Lord Helmet]

48. Al Gore was right.

Maybe if the grass roots stopped belly-aching & started doing the math and finding we aren't in Never Never Land and change doesn't happen by a magic wand,
maybe you wouldn't feel so perpetually disappointed and constantly feeling like someone has failed you.

[madfloridian]

49. The never never land comment was very strange.

This time I disagree with him. Someone did fail us twice last week. They failed us on the way the trade deal was done, and they failed us the way they stood at the press conference and bragged they had won on the Iraq bill....they had given Bush everything he wanted and said they held him accountable.

There you go. I sense a familiar tone to the "perpetually disappointed and constantly feeling like someone failed me".

Oh, my, where is the rest of the meme that is used....the "sensitive" and "paranoid" part.

:eyes:

[Lord Helmet]

51. well now I don't know what you are talking about

but whatever ... I think your expectations do not match reality, that's all.
Just a hint to help to make you a happier person. Take it or leave it.

[madfloridian]

54. I am sure you don't know.

:evilgrin:

[Lord Helmet]

56. well make fun of my short time here all you want

but I have lurked for a while before that and it has showed me what I was already told about DU
and that is that some people just like 2 complain all the time regardless of what the Democrats do.
I think they deserve some more time to straighten this mess out. That sure seems reasonable 2 me.
Maybe not 2 you and so we disagree.

[madfloridian]

59. I don't complain all the time. I present facts and scenarios.

And I judge them.

[info being]

81. Your argument that "everything is basically ok" is not gonna fly here

[Lord Helmet]

85. that isn't my argument --- not by a long shot

but your response sort of proves my point about how it goes here
about going off the deep end with no water in the pool

[info being]

104. We're all going off the deep end with no water...whether we realize it or not

*That's* the problem I'm talking about.

[LittleClarkie]

47. Thanks for being the voice of reason, Mr. President

I agree.

And I ain't goin' noplace, Dem-wise.

[calteacherguy]

50. We have 50. It's simple math and Gore is right.

Even assuming all 50 Democrats united against funding, we still don't have the votes.

[Lord Helmet]

52. yeah I pointed out requiring 67 votes to override a veto yesterday

and was made fun of and beat up pretty good,
I don't think some people factor reality into their reactions to current events.

[jsamuel]

97. you only need 40 votes to stop funding in the senate

and we have more than 50% of the house. Either would have stopped the funding.

[Buck Rabbit]

130. Bad math. GOP plus Blue Dogs and DLC make up the majority in the House

Same in the Senate. Pelosi said from the beginning (last November) that defunding the war was not a plausible way to stop it. She knows the caucus makeup of her slim majority. Besides Bush and Cheney have already made it clear they will shift funds to continue anyway.

The best shot Congress has to influence the war is the Clinton-Byrd repeal of the war authorization. The public can be sold on this bill, is sold already on the concept, as opposed to a futile shoot your cause in the foot defunding attempt. While you'll never get a GOPer to support defunding, you can pressure many of them to sign up on the concept that all provisions of the original IWR have been met and its time to leave. Smith, Snowe, Hagel and others are already open to this but not to defunding.

No, I am not a Hilary supporter, but this bill is the most sell able to the public and centrist Dems and Repugs.

[Pirate Smile]

106. 50 minus Tim Johnson and you know who.

(Lieberman)

[medlakeguy]

53. Just don't fund

you just need to not pass any more funds for the war, that only needs 51 no votes and that could happen.

[calteacherguy]

65. There are only 50 Democrats in the Senate. nt

[info being]

82. Couldn't the House have blocked it?

[jsamuel]

99. yes, it's either or for blocking

only need both for passing

Those who are accusing the rest of us of denying reality need a check of their own. Democrats voted for this bill. Not the majority of Democrats in the House, but without Democrats voting for this bill, it would not have passed. They could have done it with 40 votes in the Senate or 50% in the House.

[welshTerrier2]

55. The OP has "characterized" what Gore actually said

I want to be very clear on this: Gore did NOT indicate how he would have voted. Here are the exact words he used regarding the Democrats vote on the Iraq supplemental:

and when the Congressional leaders didn't have the votes to override the President's veto then their options were diminished.

I have a lot of faith in Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the new leaders of the committees. But, they didn't have the votes and so I understand that their options were reduced sharply. But there's no doubt that a lot of people who felt that they would just instantly change the course of the war may not give them as much credit as they should for trying as hard and effectively as they have and they're not done yet.

It is my contention that Gore left himself a mile and a half of wiggle room with that statement. Having your options "sharply reduced" does not translate, in my opinion, to the phrase used in the OP that the Democrats "HAD" to vote for funding without any conditions. Sharply reduced options could readily be interpreted to mean that the Democrats either had to do what they did or they could have sent the original bill back to bush or they could have done nothing which would have cutoff funding. Whether you agree or disagree with those "sharply reduced" options, those options still existed. Gore has previously used the phrase "blunt instruments" (or "blunt mechanisms" - sorry, CRS problem) to indicate that the powers granted to Congress were somewhat in the all or nothing category. The point, again, is that Gore did NOT eliminate every option except the one the Democrats chose.

Gore also said that those who wanted a more aggressive push to end the war did not give credit to the Democrats for "trying hard and effectively". This means he thinks we all should acknowledge the tough spot the Democrats were in and that they were effective under the circumstances. Again, "trying and effective" is a recognition they deserve credit for what they did; it does not mean he would have made the same choice.

I've had this issue about Gore's vagueness on a specific Iraq policy for several years now. I wish one of the many interviewers he sits down with would point blank pin him down and ask him exactly how he would have voted on this last bill had he been in the Senate. For now, all we can do is banter back and forth about how we interpret what Gore's words actually mean.

Here's a link for those who want to watch Gore's Olbermann appearance. To advance the video to the excerpt included above, start the video at 6:16.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm??f=00&g=a8d00c9d-2551-4877-89cd-e3469c892d63

[welshTerrier2]

60. it appears the OP is incorrect

source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x999757

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.

Please be very careful when recounting what people have said. It's very important to distinguish between what is "an interpretation" versus what was actually said. I ascribe no hidden motives to the OP or anyone else but believe the post inaccurately conveyed what Gore intended.

[Lord Helmet]

61. the statements are not in conflict

stating it was what they had to do is not at odds with stating how he would have voted

[welshTerrier2]

64. ya know ...

i was going to respond with all sorts of LOGIC (you know, if one is true and two is true blah, blah, blah)

the bottom line is (if the DU source I cited is correct) that Gore said he would have voted NO ... the bottom line is that the Democrats betrayed us by doing what they did.

and the bottom line is that the OP very clearly intepreted Gore's words to mean he would have voted YES because there were no other options.

it's interesting to go back over the other responses in the thread now that we know how Gore would have voted on the funding bill.

spin this anyway you like; twist it and turn it upside down; sugar coat it with hot fudge ... the Democrats gave bush more money to continue a policy that will do nothing but bring more death and more suffering and more madness ... i can see no justification for spending another day in the killing fields ... and frankly, forget all these idiotic timelines too ... bush should have been given funds only to protect the troops and bring them home as quickly as their safety allowed ... no more money for offensive operations ... see you in September ...

[snowbear]

66. Welsh is just an unhappy camper..

And my name is not "OP"

We were all (well.. most of us anyway) watching Olbermann at the time.

Good grief, you've been in quite the funk lately.

[welshTerrier2]

72. are you going to characterize me or respond to the info i provided?

i am not "just" an unhappy camper ... i bent over backwards to be civil about my disagreement but you appear to be a wee bit unappreciative ... do I read you correctly, Larissa?

how about just acknowledging that your "interpretation" of what Gore said appears to be incorrect? Better still, how about a new thread with a retraction to correct the record? I didn't post here to attack you. In fact, my first post (before I had the additional information in my second post) was strictly raising the possibility of there being a different interpretation to what Gore said. Was the post rude in some way?

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the DU post I cited but, if correct, it appears Gore specifically stated he would have voted against the funding bill. Is that what you concluded from his appearance on Olbermann?

as for being in a funk, you must have missed some of my light-hearted moments ...

[snowbear]

73. No way pal.. If you'd like to listen to Al Gore on Keith today..

Go to --> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

And you can hear him talking about the vote. Something to this tune:

"He says at least twice the Democratic options were diminished they simply didn't have the vote. I admire Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid, but they didn't have the votes"

I'm glad you're not feeling down & out..

Do you have any puppies right now?

[welshTerrier2]

74. let's try this one more time ...

in my first post above, i provided a VERBATIM excerpt of what Gore said regarding the Iraq vote. I also provided the link to the Olbermann video on MSNBC ... again, you can see the excerpt I provided at 6:16 into the video.

in my second post, I linked to another DU thread (not mine) where someone posted an interview Gore did (today? - not sure) where he was asked how he would have voted on the last Iraq funding bill. He said he would have voted "No".

I understand many in this thread hoped to have Gore support their point of view. I also think Gore often leaves himself a ton of wiggle room. I don't think he wants to be pinned down too much about Iraq. Let's face it, any position he would take would make him lots of friends and lots of enemies. As I wrote above, I thought he was intentionally vague on what he said on Olbermann and just as you interpreted his remarks one way, I interpreted them another. The second post I made, however, appears to eliminate any doubt. Gore was specifically asked how he would have voted and said he would have voted against any Iraq funding that lacked a timetable for withdrawal (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/gore_against_fu.html). That's not subject to much interpretation.

and nope, no puppies ... just one very cute little welsh terrier ... are you thinking of getting a puppy?

[Lord Helmet]

87. all I can say

is that my mom was right about these boards,
that there are some nasty people here
that can't disagree in a pleasant way.

I won't recommend these boards to my Democratic club
at school. This is some crazy shit that goes on here.

[beachmom]

100. No, you should stay and develop a thick skin. And make sure

you have your facts and links in a row. Politics is a contact sport. You need to get a little roughed up in order to tough it up, and hone your debating skills.

[Pastiche423]

145. Thank you welshTerrier2

for bringing the truth to this thread.

[snowbear]

148. Pastiche423 .. the transcript is up now - - - what is UNTRUE?

.."when the congressional leaders didn‘t have the votes to override the president‘s veto, then their options were diminished.

I have a lot of faith in Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the new leaders of the committees, but they didn‘t have the votes. And so I understand that their options were reduced sharply.

But there‘s no doubt that a lot of people who felt that they would just instantly change the course of the war may not give them as much credit as they should for trying as hard and effectively as they have. And they‘re not done yet."

Most of the people who responded to the thread were watching it at the time.

There was honesty from the get-go.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18941369/

[Pastiche423]

150. See post #60

Also, I have a little difficulty believing anything you "report".

[welshTerrier2]

151. Larissa - you said Gore stated the Dems did what they HAD to do

that implies the Dems had NO ALTERNATIVE and followed the only available path ... Gore did not say or imply that ... he said their options were "sharply reduced".

in a separate interview, cited in post #60, it's clear he saw other alternatives to passing the funding bill because he said he would have voted against it ... if he didn't HAVE to vote for it, neither did the Democrats who supported the bill ...

Please read post #60.

[madfloridian]

57. SO...what do you think? If they do the same thing in 4 months...will it be ok?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3290272

[Lord Helmet]

58. why don't you stomp your feet and threaten to leave the party

isn't that how it's done?

[madfloridian]

63. You are very judgemental of me. Why? I don't know you...do I?

Or do I? :think:

[Lord Helmet]

86. you're going off on the Democrats and you call me judgmental ?

that's funny

btw you keep asking if you know me and you were earlier worried about being called paranoid
I asked my mom about you though & she described you to a T so you can be paranoid about that

[calteacherguy]

67. At the risk of repeating myself...There are only 50 Democrats in the Senate.

Be realistic. Not everyone agrees on the best course of action, and we don't even have a majority.

[madfloridian]

126. The realism is that our party goofed on that bill.

And we are being asked not to mention it.

We are not supposed to act like we know that.

[IndianaGreen]

62. The "Inconvenient Truth" is that Democrats could have ended the war by doing NOTHING!

Democrats had no Constitutional obligation to resubmit a funding bill to Bush, they could have just let the money run out as Dennis Kucinich said to do (the Do Nothing option), or they could have send Bush the same bill that Bush vetoed, over and over again, as Edwards said (the Do It Again option). Democrats did neither!

Democrats could have ended the war by doing NOTHING!

Pelosi is a Bush enabler when she says "impeachment is off the table."

Why doesn't Pelosi say "war funding is off the table?"

[calteacherguy]

69. 49 Republicans + Lieberman + Cheney = majority. nt

[IndianaGreen]

70. So what? We control the House! All funding originates in the House.

Don't tell me you are afraid of that Likudnik Connecticut gnome.

If Pelosi can block impeachment by just saying "impeachment is off the table," she can also do the righteous thing and say "war funding is off the table."

[riverdale]

83. +1 Indiana Green

I love me some Indiana Green! I have never ever bothered to look at a "DU Journal" but I just checked yours out. Good work!

[BootinUp]

89. There has been plenty of articles, analysis, polls

which showed that the country would not support that tactic by congress. You obviously don't care if we give back control of congress at the next election. Thankfully the reps in congress and the Senators don't follow your advice on that issue. The war must be ended by continuing the pressure by all other means available until we get the votes to actually pass something meaningful in both houses.

[Solon]

92. Question, which is more important, saving lives in the year and a half before the next...

election, or actually winning the next election? If we don't have the votes now, you and I know we are NEVER going to have the votes till the Democrats win the White House in 2009. Unlike you, however, we value the soldier's lives more than a few votes.

[BootinUp]

108. Its a false argument

"you and I know we are NEVER going to have the votes till the Democrats win the White House in 2009"

I disagree with the certainty of your argument. There are definite signs that you will be proved wrong at this point in time. In any case either Bush will have to make some major changes to keep from losing support or there will be a vote for a bill he objects to that could lead to a veto over ride vote.

This is the challenge Americans have asked the Democrats to lead. We mustn't fail.

[Solon]

115. You forget that Bush is a lame duck, he doesn't need support...

He's in the White house until 2009 unless we remove him from office before then. But then again, Impeachment is "off the table" too. The only way, before 2009, to get a veto proof majority is to get Republicans on board, and you might be able to pull it off, in a parallel Universe.

Problem is the Democrats apparently suck at leading, or even uniting, on any issue in Congress. Just more back room deals and more bullshit coming from DC, just that this time it has a big "D" stamped on it.

[BootinUp]

116. I was alluding to support

from congress ie moderate repukes and others that are threatening a revolt. Obviously I disagree with your premise that its impossible.

[Solon]

119. Support that is purely conjecture and rumor at this point...

even if true, the Democrats will do something to fuck it up, probably forget to put timetables in again.

ON EDIT: I'm cynical enough to think the Democrats are using the Iraq War as leverage for the Presidential Elections next year. They will delay and delay, while trying to say "We tried", just so a Democrat gets in the White House.

[BootinUp]

120. More than rumors and conjecture

its stories leaked for a purpose and a tacit admission of mission meltdown.

[Solon]

125. Call me skeptical....

and my cynical point still stands, I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to do that either.

[IndianaGreen]

141. Some of those Democrats (Hillary, Obama) are talking about keeping US troops in Iraq beyond 2009

In her AIPAC speech, Hillary specifically said that we needed a residual force in Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda, protect the oil, and defend Israel.

Sounds like a Democratic version of Bush's Permanent War!

[BootinUp]

143. A Democratic version

would be much preferable. But that statement you present is troubling to me. I think it was some months ago too, no? I think a Democratic President's policy on Iraq and in the future is a hard thing to fully predict and would be dependent on positions taken by other countries in the region our allies etc.

[IndianaGreen]

140. I plead guilty to caring more about saving lives by defunding the war, than I do about...

I plead guilty to caring more about saving lives by defunding the war, than I do about some inside the Beltway political calculation.

This week's Newsweek has an article in which someone says that the reason the Democrats did not vote to defund the war is because they want the war to still be an issue in 2008 to beat the Republicans with. I sure hope that Newsweek is wrong about that. I pray that the Beltway insiders are not using the lives of our troops, and the lives of innocent Iraqis, as sacrificial lambs on the altar of political expediency.

Is Newsweek right?

[BootinUp]

144. What good is caring when you care about a losing strategy?

No matter how lofty a goal it is...it wasn't going to happen... period.

[beachmom]

101. We need an orderly withdrawal from Iraq. Not a simple cut in funding

all of a sudden. That would be beyond irresponsible and I do not support that. Most Americans agree.

[Solon]

118. It doesn't matter if we leave this year or 50 years from now, our withdrawal is going to be...

anything but orderly.

[onenote]

94. the inconvenient truth is that only a small percentage of the electorate favored defunding

Yes, the Democratic congressional leadership could've not brought any approps bill to the floor. But to state the rather obvious, a significant portion of the Democratic caucus wanted to vote for a bill. Why? Because the electorate would've been very unforgiving of defunding.

I wish everyone agreed with us, but they don't. Six months ago the Democrats captured Congress. Most of the Democrats that were elected ran on pledges to try to change the course in Iraq. Very very few stated that they supported immediate withdrawal. Those are the cold hard facts.

[Buck Rabbit]

131. Not true. The Republicans would have sponsored a funding bill

and it would have easily passed with the support of the Blue Dogs and DLC.

And she did say "war funding is off the table". She said loud clear and repeatedly last November that the Democrats would not defund the war while troops are in the field.

I don't understand why so many in the anti-war movement have put so much energy into an impossible to succeed funding strategy instead of focusing efforts on the De-Authorization bill that the public and Centrists of both parties could be sold on.

[IndianaGreen]

139. First, the Speaker can block bills from being considered. Second, Vietnam War was defunded

Repealing IWR would be as nice a PR move as repealing Gulf of Tonkin resolution, a "feel good" vote that wouldn't accomplish a goddamned thing.

What stopped the Vietnam bodycount at 58,000 dead GIs was a Congress that had the presence of mind to defund that war. Had they not done so, we would have ended up with several more panels of names on the Vietnam Wall.

[Buck Rabbit]

146. US troops were not defunded in Vietnam.

In December of 1974 with US troops already down to less than .05% of their high level and two years after the Paris Peace Accord, support to the South Vietnamese government was cut off and US troop levels were limited to the level they were already at, less than 4000. The Vietnam War was already over as far as American was concerned. Nixon had resigned, and President Ford wanting nothing more to do with Vietnam gladly signed the bill.

In 1970 while the war was still going on the Hatfield-McGovern defunding bill was crushed.

[ShortnFiery]

68. Another reason I still believe that Gore is a centrist, and as such, far too complacent save for

a few issues.

No Al, their behavior (Democrats who voted for another War Profiteering Bill) is totally unacceptable. Our beloved troops will die for nothing but the FAT PROFITS gleaned by this bill for Big Businesses within the Military Industrial Complex! :grr:

This and a few other statements have convinced me that Al Gore, for all his high intellect and well meaning, is still missing a pair. :(

[jillan]

71. So now is everybody going to start trashing Al Gore?

Seems to be the thing around here lately.
Even AAR was dissing this place today.

Thankfully Gore gets it.

[LittleClarkie]

75. Yip

We spin on a dime around here sometimes.

[IndianaGreen]

76. I think the reason Gore gave an undeserving pass to Pelosi & Reid

is because he may be considering running for President. It isn't wise for a Presidential candidate to dis the Congressional leaders of his party.

[BootinUp]

88. you must be kidding.

Clearly the political play that helps most in a primary here is to trash the Congress. As I said in another thread on Gore, Gore probably just showed he is not running by making this statement.

[info being]

77. Wrong. They have enough votes not to pass it.

In other words, Bush didn't have enough votes...until they gave the votes to him. Don't give me that 2/3 crap...they didn't have to pass the bill.

[sendero]

90. Exactly....

.... there was NO REASON that the congress couldn't have told Bush - here is the bill. It is the ONLY bill you will get. If you veto it, YOU ARE CUTTING FUNDS FOR THE TROOPS.

Game over.

I respect Gore a lot, but he's just plain wrong.

[onenote]

95. wrong -- there was a reason

And its that a substantial number of Demcorats, reflecting the will of their constituents, don't favor total defunding.

You can engage in all the wishful thinking you'd like, but you can't change reality

[WilliamPitt]

109. "Don't give me that 2/3 crap"

Don't give you that "enough-to-override-a-veto-and-actually-pass-the-bill" crap, you mean?

[DRoseDARs]

84. Funny. Bush didn't have the votes, twice, so his backers did what THEY had to do...

...and look what it got us. Seems Bush hit another trifecta.

[MadHound]

91. There's only a small handful of people around here still denying the truth

And that is that the Dems haven't done all that they can do to end this war. They could defund this war and bring the troops home. No, vote, no veto, just bury the supplemental war funding bills in committee and force the troops home.

And yes, Gore is wrong on this also.

[jsamuel]

98. To tell you the truth I felt Gore fell flat last night on Countdown.

I like him and he has great ideas, but man... my wife was falling asleep. He completely dodged any Cindy Sheehan question, which isn't all that bad, except his dodges were horrible. It was hard to listen to him. He said one of the reasons he may not run is because he isn't a very good politician. Unfortunately, I have to agree with that. I think Gore could have the most impact on the race by playing like he is going to run until August or September, then endorse a candidate.

[Apollo11]

114. He wanted to talk about the big picture

If you want to see funny Al - why not go and watch his chat with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show website?

I also thought he did a good job on CNN with Larry King last week. Better than on Countdown.

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Visit Al's site www.algore.com and read his blog http://blog.algore.com

Get ready for Live Earth on 7/7/07: www.liveearth.org

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:

[GeorgeGist]

107. Sorry to burst your bubble ...

but Al is engaging in self-deception. The Dems didn't need votes to end the war; after Bush vetoed additional funding.

[BootinUp]

110. nice knick...

unfortunately I can't agree with "Everbody's" opinion. ;)

[jmp]

113. The Democratic Congress did what they could ...

They had all the votes they needed. What they lacked was the guts to walk away from funding the "war". The democrats are scared to death of the "soft on defense" label.

Meanwhile 117 American soldiers have died in Iraq so far this month making it the 3rd deadliest of this entire mess. These last 2 months also mark the 1st time we've suffered 100+ deaths in back to back months in Iraq.

For comparison, more US soldiers have died in Iraq in the past 5 months than have died in 5 1/2+ years of war in Afghanistan.

[welshTerrier2]

117. politics over policy

welcome to DU, jmp ...

the decision to bring the supplemental bill to the floor without a withdrawal timetable was, as you pointed out, a political choice.

here's a post I made recently on the subject: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3284300

does anyone really believe that, by funding more time in Iraq, any progress will be made?

no one who supports what the Dems did seems to want to answer that question.

[jmp]

123. 4 more months

does anyone really believe that, by funding more time in Iraq, any progress will be made?

Probably not. But at least our soldiers are dying fully funded.

The Dem's strategy seems to be to wait for Republicans to deliver on the promise made by Democratic candidates last year. Some people are fine with that.

[havocmom]

121. Too many, even at DU, have the 'somebody outta fix it' syndrome

'Somebody outta do this'

'Somebody outta do that'

Replace 'somebody' with 'Congress' and you have the typical whiner.

In a Democracy, SOMEBODY is US! And what we have to do is make sure we get more good reps elected who actually represent US.

Then, we have to NOT sit back on our laurels, thinking our work is done. We have to KEEP WORKING to make damn sure we do not allow the tactics that have been going on FOR DECADES to set in place the mechanisms by which the corporate powers have usurped the government for themselves.

The damaged was NOT done in just the last few years. george bush is NOT the guy who created this disaster. The Iceman Cometh for a damned long time and We the People did not pay adequate attention or take enough action.

One Congress, with a small (and arguable) majority cannot undo DECADES of damage.

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport. For too long, too many have been taking it for granted. Too busy chanting "WE'RE # 1" to notice that we are falling and falling fast.

Will take a lot of time and energy to right the wrongs and restore the nation. Bitching that THIS Congress didn't get 'er done is just plain inexcusable, lazy, deluded, shortsighted thinking. Yeah, hold their feet to the heat, but maintain a sense of reality about what is and isn't possible at any given time. Things get done in steps and stages. We are just barely reclaiming the stage.

[jmp]

124. all well and good but

This Congress refused to do this very important job. This didn't require any more time or energy. This Congress punted on its responsibility.

[havocmom]

127. ? They funded for three months

They get to keep squeezing the junta and our job is to rally more and more people to get vocal. THAT will give their scant and unreliable majority a bit more clout. But really, they can't get much more done without the votes. That is our job too.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

132. Count me among the handful. (nt)

[ProSense]

134. Ah, more excuses for supporting a dictator and his catastrophic war

Dictator here. Catastrophic war http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3291411&mesg_id=3291411">here.

[ecstatic]

135. so now I guess everyone will forgive them because the hero, Al Gore, has spoken

:eyes:

Al Gore is wrong, again.

[ejbr]

136. Unlike Faux news viewers,

I am able to disagree with the politician I admire the most. How ignoring the will of the people, regardless of circumstance can be the right thing is beyond me. Sure, if Congress ignored the will of the people and legalized gay marriage, no one will be killed because of it. However, when the people want the killing to stop and it is ignored, we have problems.

[mtnsnake]

138. The Democrats did what they do best. They fucking caved in to their fears

...their fears of how they'd be perceived if they did the RIGHT thing. Looks like Gore is asserting himself by waving the flag, the white flag.

[Hippo_Tron]

142. The Democratic Congress lost a political game of chicken..

Which they obviously weren't serious about playing in the first place. IMO, the Democrats should have passed a resolution forcing Bush to come back and negotiate for funding every week. They may not get their timetable, but it would certainly wear Bush down as well as the Republicans in the House and Senate.

[AtomicKitten]

147. Oh dear. It appears that Gore has lost the blush of fabulousness to some

because they don't agree with every single thing he utters. It's so predictable to see the beginning of Gore being trashed here at DU. It was just a matter of time.

Not that it matters, but I am fine with him saying he would have voted no but that he understands the House didn't have a choice here considering cutting off funding is something the House leadership has pledged not to do. Whether or not people agree with that notion is another matter.

I don't see Gore's statements on this as contradictory but rather yet another springboard for an agenda and the beginning of his undoing at DU. I snort in disgust and shake my head in dismay. Regardless, he's still aces in my book.

[DearAbby]

152. I love Al Gore...but I disagree with him on this one -nt

[UrbScotty]

154. Seems like Al's a lot smarter than most DUers (nt)

[Larkspur]

155. The main problem with the Dem leaders is that they haven't figured out how to battle Bush

in the Media. They are stuck in the 1970's when it comes to Media strategy. I wouldn't mind them losing this legislative battle if they had a better Media strategy that put the onus on Bush, but polls are starting to show that people are buying the Bush Admin's propaganda on this battle and that the Dems don't want us out of Iraq either.