Bill Clinton once said about Iraq: "I want it to have been worth it."

[madfloridian]

Many important Democrat leaders with access to much money and having much power actually approved of going into Iraq, and I don't have any real belief they will be inclined to get us out. I quote Bill Clinton below about his trust in Bush on the war, and I quoted where he said this:

"Bill Clinton in 2004 on Iraq: "I want it to have been worth it."

Unfortunately, President Clinton, it will never have been worth it.

I hear they are going to vote on the supplemental tomorrow. I have a lot of mixed feelings. I know that the progressives have been asked to go along, give in. And the Blue Dogs were not asked to do so. So, that bothers me. I figure there are 72 in the Progressive Caucus, and the total of Blue Dogs and New Dems is 79 put together. That is subtracting the 7 who are joint members of the two conservative groups.

So I guess you could look at it two ways. Progressives far outnumber each group individually, or that the Progressives are behind by 7 if the two groups are combined.

Whatever the case the Progressives were asked to give in, vote with us, let us get something....sounds so familiar.

Do some Dems think putting troop standards will undermine troops?

Here's a poll, and a more recent one shows 60 percent in favor.

Would you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush's plan by creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq?

Support: 58 percent
Oppose: 39 percent
Unknown: 4 percent

Allen Boyd, a Blue Dog leader says this:

"We think this is the group that represents where the greatest bloc of Americans are -- toward that big middle. Not far left, not far right, but that big middle, that's going to be able to get things done," he added. "And it's going to have to be done on a bipartisan basis."

He says they are the "big middle", and they want to be bipartisan. But they don't want to do what the majority wants....create new rules on troop training and rest time.

"Iraq is a good example," Boyd said. "The majority of the caucus would say, 'Let's be really strong in forcing the president out of here.' Well, some of us are really uncomfortable playing general, and you're going to see that reflected in what we vote on."

I really fear we are not going to leave. I honestly believe we are there for oil and reasons of empire in the guise of protecting our nation and our interests. I think many Democrats were actually in favor of going into Iraq. Looking back to 2004:

Bill Clinton in 2004 on Iraq: "I want it to have been worth it."

His quote:

I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said

From CNN 2004

Clinton defends successor's push for war

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

...."I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said"

Here is the letter from the liberal House Dems on which they were asked to compromise.

Liberal House Dems unveil new approach.

Congress is going to have to act decisively to end this occupation and to bring troops home. Bush has bet his legacy on an unnecessary war that his administration has botched at every turn. His escalation plan is a plan to pass the buck. If anyone thinks that it will be easy for the next President, even a Democrat, to quickly extricate our nation from the mess Bush has made, he or she is just wrong. Congress is going to have to act, either sooner or later.

The Bush administration argues that Congressional action on Iraq either constitutes micromanagement or cutting off funding for troops in the field, but let's look at the facts.

Fully funding withdrawal is not micromanagement, it is macromanagement - the Bush administration has so badly managed this effort that they have forced Congress to intervene.

Fully funding withdrawal is not cutting off funding - we are going to fully fund a rational alternative to the administration's attempt to run out the clock on their failed policy.

They are right. The vote coming up which will probably not do much for the troops. I find myself wondering how many more will die before the fall of 08.

[JohnyCanuck]

1. Then Clinton is either an idiot or a liar

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

[TwilightGardener]

5. You know, he IS good buddies with Poppy...mustn't upset Poppy...

[liberalpragmatist]

2. The progressives got a lot of concessions

They got a firm date: August 2008. Incidentally, that's also around the time that Iraqis themselves want us out (see Juan Cole's website: http://www.juancole.com). They got numerous constraints that the Blue Dogs resisted.

No, this isn't perfect. Yes, it'd be better if this were to get us out of Iraq within the year. But politics is about putting together a coalition.

And in any event, Bush is going to veto the bill.

The message will be sent that Democrats want to end the war, Bush and the Republicans want to continue it.

[madfloridian]

3. Thanks, I did not realize that.

I will check out your link.

Do you have a more direct link?

[liberalpragmatist]

4. For the Iraq poll?

Check on Juan Cole's site.

As for the Iraq Bill, the best post I saw on this is from dKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/22/204516/706

How it looks from the outside
by kos
Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:00:50 PM PDT

With all the hand-wringing over the details of the Iraq supplemental, one of the arguments many are making is that the bill "doesn't go far enough" and that it'll make the Democrats look "weak" for caving the to Blue Dogs and "watering it down".

I'm actually quite proud of the progressive caucus -- it's time House progressives start flexing their muscles a little. And the concessions they've won are important ones. Is the supplemental perfect? Nope. But ultimately, it matters little. Bush will veto it, just like he'd veto a "tougher" bill. The would-be-emperor from the unaccountable administration has no interest in agreeing to even the most mildest of oversight requests.

At the end of the day, this is a message battle. It's a chance for Democrats to show that they are interested in ending the war and getting our troops safely home, while the other side wants to escalate the war and get our troops killed.

To that end, look at the headlines the Supplemental is generating:

US Democrats press deadline for Iraq pullout
Iraq pullout measures moves with war bill
US House opens debate on US withdrawal from Iraq
House Democrats seek votes for Iraq exit timetable
Dems labor for sure majority on pullout
Iraq pullout measure moves ahead
After 3 decades, Congress again tries to end a war
Dems seek votes to order pullout from Iraq

You get the point. Few care about the details. The message being sent is that Democrats want out, Republicans want more Americans to die in Iraq.

That is the clear distinction we need heading into 2008. Voters will then decide which they prefer -- pullout or escalation. And when we win that battle and hold the White House and Congress, this war is history.

So the particular of the bills matter little. Whatever we pass, no matter how weak or strong, will be vetoed and we won't have the votes for an override. The war will go on until we get some sane people in charge of the joint.

So we use this as part of the message war.

If we can't end the war right now (and we can't, thanks to King George), then we lay the foundation that will ultimately accomplish that goal.

[madfloridian]

6. Ok, I see what you mean.

I agree it does make good headlines. I read that by Kos. But good headlines won't keep soldiers alive or protect Iraqis either. That is my problem.

I believe in my heart it goes deeper...to protecting interests we decided were ours. I doubt we will give that up.

[madfloridian]

7. Outstanding comments to the Dem Caucus from a red state Dem.

This post at Kos really impressed me. We supported Traunor from Wyoming a little financially in the last campaign. He did not win but he made a difference in running.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/22/20838/2276

"I had the opportunity last week to spend some time in DC with the Democratic House Caucus as they debated the Iraq Supplemental bill. In fact, I was given the opportunity to speak to the Caucus for a few minutes. Against the advice of several "consultants" who wanted me to just show up, be bland and ask for financial support, I couldn't let this golden chance slip by without giving them my take on the Iraq situation from a different angle....

..."In the business world, strong Board action in the face of a ineffective CEO/management team that is pursuing a rigid and ill-planned strategy isn’t micromanaging – its called good governance. And, in my view, it‘s good politics.

I can tell you that the arguments I heard in the Dem House Caucus were by and large impassioned and heartfelt. And leadership is working hard to come up with a solution. But here in the west, after knocking on nearly 20,000 doors across Wyoming last year, I KNOW that people want straight talk and a Representative who will stand up for his/her convictions."

This is Congress' chance to show the American people that they have the courage to hold others accountable, and that they have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing regardless of political calculation."

[snot]

8. Hate to say it, but giving $$ to Bush to spend in Iraq is like giving $$ to

a terrorist.

He has our sons and daughters hostage.

He's threatening us saying if we don't give him all the money he wants, WE'RE responsible for not funding the troops.

But HE is the "decider"; HE is the one in control and who's responsible for HOW the money is spent. We can give him all the money we've got, and there's no assurance he'll spend one dime more on the troops.

He's already demonstrated, whatever we give him, most of it's going into his buddies' pockets, or anywhere OTHER than to help our troops.

The best thing we can do is stop enabling this guy.

We have only two effective means of reasserting control before 2008: the power of the purse, and impeachment.

[eridani]

9. Then Bill is like most of the front runners--

--basically OK with the idea that it's OK to kick the shit out of other countries and take their stuff, and use our imperial 700+ bases to cram corporate-ruled globalization down everybody's throats.

[madfloridian]

14. But be nicer about it while we do it.

If you take their stuff with a smile and less force...oh, well.

I am so mixed today in my feelings. I want to give credit where due.

I am trying to write about a visit we had this week from some Republican relatives....they sound more passionate against this war now than do many Democrats. They were Rush Limbaugh fans, but they have turned completely.

I was asked at one point to explain the judge firings. I said they were Bush appointees...he butted in before I finished to say but they did not toe the line did they? There was so much...can't figure out to write.

[mmonk]

10. You have to understand that most of the time in American politics,

it's not about the American people or what's in the best interests of the country, but what's in the best interests of the ruling elite and their think tanks and corporations. Then work the situation out from that point. Knowing what controls who and who controls what will allow you to take the right stands and to apply the right pressure on representatives.

[madfloridian]

12. And I just heard on TV how the "progressive anti-war" were ...

I believe they used the word "whipped", how hard it was to get the anti-war on board. Sounded odd to hear our party whipping them liberal anti-war into shape.

I know all the reasons, it is just hard to accept them.

[blm]

15. Unfortunately, Bill sides more often with Bush's secrecy and privilege than he

ever has with the Democrats and the constitution. He's just the expert at putting the smiling, gentle face on the fascism.

[MadHound]

11. This really isn't suprising

After all, this is the man whose administration inflicted death on 500,000 innocent Iraqis, either through sanctions or thrice weekly bombing runs over Iraq. While Clinton didn't pursue a serious military solution, he did push soft solutions to the problem of getting our oil out from under Iraq. Oil for Food, and other such soft sell measures. He was politically savvy enough not to start a war there, but he did keep the Iraqi kettle bubbling, in order that his successor could unleash the dogs of war.

Clinton has almost as much blood on his hands as Bush does, and sadly, when he states that he wants it to be worth it, he's not talking democracy or other such noble sentiments here, he's talking barrels of oil and dollars for the oilgarchy.

[madfloridian]

13. Those who were right about Iraq were asked to go along to get along.

To make sure we got a majority, to make sure we got in power so we could do the right thing. We were told to stay on board to fight the evil that was George Bush's administration.

Now our progressives are told to stay on board so we can send even more money to a war we are losing so more soldiers can die and more Iraqis can be killed.

Power and money control it all. I fear it will for many years. Right and wrong are now relative terms when it comes to Iraq and other issues.

[Cha]

16. Guess what, Billyboy?

The bushitsitas WAr On Iraq didn't bow to your wishes.

I and Millions of others KNEW it wouldn't be "worth it"..cause it was started on a fookin' Neocon Power Grab Whim.

And, yeah, I'm sure you did want it to be "worth it" because that would cement hillary's political position..OOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPS! Gotta feel sorry for all those dead Iraqis and Dead and wounded for Life American Soldiers, though..doncha think, billyboy?

[madfloridian]

17. Maybe our Congress needs to read Scott Ritter's latest...

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/page4/20070323_calling_out_idiot_america/

"The longer the Americans remain in Iraq, the more violence the Americans bring down on Iraq, and the more the Americans are seen as facilitating the persecution of the Sunnis by the Shiites, the more legitimate the call of the Wahhabi fanatics become. While American strategists may speak of the rise of al-Qaida in Iraq, this is misrecognition of what is really happening. Rather than foreigners arriving and spreading Wahhabism in Iraq, the virulent sect of Islamic fundamentalism is spreading on its own volition, assisted by the incompetence and brutality of an American occupation completely ignorant of the reality of the land and people it occupies. This is the true significance of Baghdad, and any answer not reflecting this will be graded as failing.

A pop quiz, consisting of one question in two parts. Most readers might complain that it is not realistic to expect mainstream America to possess the knowledge necessary to achieve the level of comprehension required to pass this quiz. I agree. However, since the mission of the United States in Iraq has shifted from disarming Saddam to installing democracy to creating stability, I think it only fair that the American people be asked about those elements that are most relevant to the issue, namely the Shiite and Sunni faithful and how they interact with one another."

[Cha]

18. Thanks for

this link to a very in depth analysis, mad..Scott Ritter just keeps pluggin' away..he was doing his damnest to stop this massacre before it got started and four years later Congress should bring Scott Ritter to testify why they shouldn't pour more money down the Iraqibushhole.

[madfloridian]

19. That's a powerful article.

They should have listened.

[sandnsea]

20. Only 8 Blue Dogs voted no

IIRC. Of course they ought to be being held accountable, and probably haven't heard a peep from their constituents - but we did get quite a number of Blue Dogs to support that bill too. So it isn't accurate to say the Blue Dogs weren't pressured - they were.