Can someone explain to me how Bush's veto wasn't HIS defunding of the war?

[StefanX]

Can someone explain to me how Bush's veto of the first appropriations bill wasn't *his* de-funding of the war? Or rather, explain to me how Democrats were unable to frame the debate in that manner?

I don't understand how the man who took the only prominent negative action against troop funding remains blameless in the de-funding debate, especially when he has a 30% approval rating.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/26/iraq_myth/permalink/7aa1f15e5f444ca15586c6103ba7749d.html

Good question. Anyone have any answers?

[StefanX]

1. When your opponent is digging himself into one don't interrupt. Heh.

So much for the "reality" based party.

I almost feel sorry for you folks, but I'm reminded of the second (I believe) rule of holes: When your opponent is digging himself into one, don't interrupt. Heh.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/26/iraq_myth/permalink/9d27b002a0d38d6b2650de53a39647e6.html

[Suich]

2. It WAS his defunding of the war.

Fox Noise framed it the other way and the rest of the msm followed suit.

Voila!

:-(

[tabasco]

3. That's what makes the Dem cave-in that much more difficult to understand.

Put the onus on Bush to fund the troops and make him get them the hell out of there.

[Cronopio]

7. Was it a cave-in, or was it complicity from the outset? nt

[StefanX]

8. This is also a big problem

I wonder how many Dem supporters no longer trust their Dem "leader" over this now.

It looks very fishy when you've got 70% of the country supporting a withdrawal, and you "cave in" to the side that only has 30% support.

Speaking only for myself, this whole thing has made me very suspicious of our Dem leaders real intentions.

If so many of us have figured out ways they could have either (a) started to end the occupation or at least (b) hung it a little more tightly around Bush's neck... then how come our Dem "leaders" (supposedly chosen specifically for their ability to not only represent us, but also strategize for us) not figure this out? Unless they're getting paid NOT to...

There's something really weird about this so-called cave-in. For the last few months, Dems have felt united and strong, and Bush has been on the run. Now all that momentum and unity has turned into a circular firing squad again.

I really feel stuck. A lot of people are either confused or pissed off. Something feels qualitatively different about THIS particular loss. I just can't put my finger on it. I guess it's because this time, it REALLY seemed like one we could have won, or at least lost a lot less badly on. This time, an overwhelming majority of Dem supporters seem to have a way smarter approach than our leaders.

Again, the ugly question rears its head: are our Dem leaders simply clueless about how to fight parliamentary and public-relations battles -- or is there some other explanation for this apparently needless cave-in?

[liberal N proud]

4. Because the Democrats failed to capitalize on it

That is the problem with the Democrats, they never get the edge on a story. Always letting the story speak for it's self. That doesn't work any more.
Whereas the republicons have become experts in spinning anything the Democrats do in a negative way.

[Bluerthanblue]

5. it was, and it would have

been the next time he vetoed a bill with teeth- and the next and next-

And eventually the little prince would have been revealed for what he is-

The funding was in the bill sent to him-

The "main course" was there- he wanted his all you can eat buffet.

[StefanX]

6. Here's an example of how to properly "frame" this:

I think Senator Webb had it right back in April when the supplemental containing provisions for withdrawal timelines were passed and sent to the President for his veto... if I recall his words accurately he said "We've sent the President a check for the necessary amount and if he chooses not to cash it, it's up to him to say why."

Likewise, he's said "the war was won four years ago... the question now is how long the occupation will continue."

Everyone would have been a lot better off if the controversy had remained framed in these terms.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/26/iraq_myth/permalink/cbec9ce1fa410ede5edc0e87c60fac74.html

(Sorry if some people find "framing" distasteful -- but "framing" is what's winning and losing these debates, so it IS important. Republicans frame things right and Democrats don't, which is why we have to worry about getting "hammered".)

[Rydz777]

9. We are told that "Bush is waiting for a bill he can sign." I'm

not sure what that means but these are possibilities: he is out of ink; he's misplaced his glasses; he doesn't know how to write; he doesn't even know how to make an x; the dog ate the last one.

[Onceuponalife]

10. Thank you!!

I've been saying the same thing since the veto. The Dems' bill actually authorized way more than the Pentagon asked for and Bush is the one who decided not to fund the troops. Bushco are becoming masters of George Orwell's newspeak. The Dems better learn how to play the game if they want to have a chance at taking this country back.