Can You Help Me Understand Something

[Sybil_23mist]

Most of the posters here seem to be very anti-war. But the Democratic politicians in Washington seem to be taking a different course than their constituents. Example:

For most in the peace movement an August 2008 deadline for withdrawal is already way too slow. Why the delay? On November 17, 2005 Rep. Jack Murtha called for redeployment within six months. Here we are sixteen months later and the Democratic leadership is talking about redeployment in seventeen months! Six months has turned into 33 months ­ and in fact the August deadline is illusory. How many lives ­ U.S. and Iraqi ­ will have been lost in this quagmire over this time period?

But, that is not the worst of it. As Rep. Maxine Waters, the Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus point out, a few weeks ago the Congress passed a non-binding resolution against the so-called "surge" but this appropriation will actually pay for the surge ­ which has grown since their vote by more than 8,200 troops. Indeed, the Democrats are poised to give Bush up to $20 billion more than he asked for!

This seems conflicting.

The Democrats with few exceptions seem to have capitulated all along the way with the Bush Agenda. As a lifelong Democrat this causes me tremendous dissonance and confusion.

[Synnical]

1. Indeed.

[KG]

2. simple really. the dem party leadership supports the wars.

they understand who really runs things in this country.

[mike_c]

3. that is why I vote Green more often than not these days....

The dem party is losing the left, whether the cheerleaders want to admit it or not. I too was a lifelong democratic party stalwart, but too many of today's dem leadership are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. Voting Green. ROFLMAO!!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Oh God, that's too funny!

:rofl:

[TheConstantGardener]

8. Oh God, they've elected America's best mayors the past few years

So watch the tongue, lad.

[WiseButAngrySara]

10. Well it is St. Patricks Day! Don't laugh so loud! ....n/t

[MADem]

28. Way to make a statement that will make a real DIFFERENCE!!!!

NOT.

[BoneDaddy]

170. On the local level it does make a difference

on the national level, we are talking bout something much different.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Thank You For Your Concern.

Unfortunately, pulling out of Iraq is far more complex and involved than just saying so. Our Dems are doing the best they can given the circumstances.

[TheConstantGardener]

7. "pulling out of Iraq is far more complex and involved than just saying so."

"Bullshit." - Iraqi and American people

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. As I Said: Pulling Out Of Iraq Is Far More Complex And Involved Than Just Saying So.

You say bullshit, but that really doesn't mean, well, anything.

Care to shed light on why it isn't more complex and involved than just saying so? I mean, are we in some world now where the republicans in congress cease to exist and we can just do anything we want? Really? Wow. Don't know how I missed that story in the papers. :eyes:

[TheConstantGardener]

13. You are absolutely wrong (like usual)

House Resolution 1234.

Defunding the war by voting down the spending bill (Dems have enough votes)

Ignorant "good liberals" shutting the hell up.

3 great things that help end the occupation.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Actually I'm Not; Regardless Of Your Ignorant Interpretations.

[TheConstantGardener]

29. That time you just insulted, didn't even make an argument

At least last times you tried to think in between bouts of ad hominem.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Nothing Ad Hominem About It. You Interpretation Was Yet Again Cast From Ignorance.

[TheConstantGardener]

44. I Guess You Capitalizing Every Word Makes It True

nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. Nope. That's Just Makes It My Header. Reality Makes It True.

[TheConstantGardener]

58. Reality Is You Support An Oil-Driven Occupation That Could Be Ended Now

There I typed it in the pretentious fashion you type yours. Now it's true ^_^

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheConstantGardener]

69. Name-Calling! Go for it Sunshine!

Hey look let's go all the way back to middle school with this?

Am I "gay" too?

The facts are, you aren't convincing anyone here. Your sole retorts are to call me name. Thankfully I left that behind in grade school.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. dems have enough votes to do that?

Where? It would never even get to the floor in the Senate.

[TheConstantGardener]

26. It's called the House

Where spending bills originate. They can just fail every spending bill, making so there's no money for war.

[MonkeyFunk]

100. and it means nothing

if it fails in the Senate. It's not that hard to grasp.

[LSK]

22. do you intentionally ignore the rules of the Senate or just by accident?

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

[TheConstantGardener]

25. Screw the Senate

Understand this before you insult me (rude, really grow up please).

Funding starts in the House. It can be cut off in the House.

[LSK]

31. how do you fund Veterans benefits?

[Telly Savalas]

114. You don't.

It's simply a game of chicken with the White House. I'm not sure why anyone thinks Bush would flinch though. The guy has nothing to lose at this point since he's not up for reelection in 2008.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. So how fast do you think it will be

for the dems to loose the house after we paralyze govermment and vets go without PTSD medications and troops actually die in the field?

[Telly Savalas]

123. They'd get swept in a landslide in 2008.

[LSK]

67. READ Legislation PLEASE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x438643

[TheConstantGardener]

I do every day

And learn to defund wars PLEASE

[MADem]

52. Are you math challenged? Can't count? What part of "We don't HAVE the VOTES" escapes you? NT

[purduejake]

27. Pulling out is complex?

Must be if you can somehow define a pullout buy supporting a surge w/ the majority of congressional dems.

[TheConstantGardener]

30. If you want the OIL it's very hard to leave Iraq now!

They haven't privatized it yet. Pelosi made it a benchmark in HER BS withdrawal plan.

[BlooInBloo]

57. Cha! Haven't you seen 'I Dream Of Jeanie'? It should be *that* easy!

:)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

68. LOL

Wish it were, but alas, damn reality. :)

[TheConstantGardener]

76. By defining your twisted perception of things as "reality"

You de facto lose the argument. The "Pomp and pretentious faux intellectualism" clause gets triggered by that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. Look Out Of Any Window, Any Morning, Any Evening, Any Day.

Maybe the sun is shining, birds are winging or rain is falling from a heavy sky. What do you want me to do, to do for you to see you through?

[Sybil_23mist]

12. What circumstances

The majority party with the majority opinion? And still there is not only no movement but no statesmanship. Just complete betrayal of my years of trust.

[TheConstantGardener]

15. He doesn't understand Dems have the votes to end the war

All they have to do is vote down the spending.

Obviously he prefers we be good Polite Liberals, like the NAACP told the SNCC to do.

I wonder what state we'd be in in civil rights in this country if we listened to the Good and Polite Liberals.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

Yeah, Cause Like, This Is Soooooooo Similar To The Civil Rights Movement.

My God are your arguments silly. My God.

[TheConstantGardener]

21. Your God probably doesn't exist

And if he did he wouldn't want Good Liberals blocking the peacemakers from saving His Children.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Now There's An Ignorant Sentiment If I've Ever Seen One.

Cracked me up in fact. You first claim my God doesn't exist yet are so arrogant and ignorant to cast upon him his will? Just how does one do that? How can one not believe something exists yet think they know it well enough to attribute firm declarations to it? That's as ignorant a concept as I've ever seen, with all due respect.

[TheConstantGardener]

39. So now you understand your Iraq argument is flawed and we turn to matters of God

I'm not Sam Harris or CS Lewis so ignore the jab and try to have serious argumentation.

Or can you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. You're Projecting Now. Seriously.

I know you've been here 2 whopping days and have 250 posts already, but I've found your style of debate and ability to actually engage in serious argumentation to be immensely lacking. Sorry pal.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

45. No, MINDCRIME is right. Your arguments ARE sillly. And terribly uninformed.

Go look at that lunatic who confronted Dave Obey, and listen to what Obey is saying.

He doesn't have a magic wand. We DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES. If you can count, you can't count to 218, see?

We DO NOT HAVE the votes. Having the majority is NOT the same as having the votes. In EITHER chamber.

Sheesh.

[TheConstantGardener]

50. A GRIEVING MOTHER WHO SPEAKS SOFTLY IS A LUNATIC?

This has gone insane. Some people are just plain robotic apologist shills for those in power (as long as they are the right Party).

I guess this is the Soviet Union. Unfortuntately I'm not a Comrade and will take ANYONE to task who continues an unjust war when IT DOESN'T NEED TO HAPPEN.

I wish we could drop Obey, Pelosi, the rest of those obstructing the Progressive Caucus's decent withdrawal plan -- DROP THEM ALL INTO BAGHDAD. Let the Iraqis show them what they think of our pathetic withdrawal plan.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. For Real, You Call This 'Serious Argumentation'?

Holy cow. :crazy:

[TheConstantGardener]

60. I Didn't Capitalize Just The First Letter

So yes I guess that was not the right pretentious style for you!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. Your Attacks Are Getting Weaker By The Minute. Take A Breather And Come Back Later When You're

refreshed, ok? :hi:

[TheConstantGardener]

77. More insults on my character

I don't care what a "toe the line of the party or we shoot you comrade" type says about me. It doesn't hurt my self esteem. My aim is to tell people there is ANOTHER WAY from what is happening now. I don't care what some irrelevant keyboard warrior thinks about me. This isn't about me. This is about millions of of IRaqis and their fate.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. What Are You Talking About? What Attack On Your Character? ROFLMAO!

Silliest. Subthread. Ever.

[MADem]

85. A kind suggestion that you're embarrassing yourself, and that maybe you should step back and

regroup, is not an "insult on your character." An insult on your character would be if someone called you a drunkard, or a child molester, or some other kind of criminal or pervert.

Saying that you cannot argue a point to save your life, and that your arguments are so weak that they stink on ice and reflect poorly on your knowledge level, does not reflect on your character.

It reflects on your ability to debate an issue armed with facts and relevant information, that's all.

[MADem]

78. Her kid is not dead. He was just redeployed. But there, you don't even know what her beef is, and

you ASSUME she's grieving. She wasn't grieving, she was GRIPING. And doing it at the WRONG GUY.

Yes, she is a lunatic. A lunatic is a person who is possessed of crazy ideas. And it's CRAZY to yell at a guy who wants to end the war, and have a cohort film it, who all the while is hectoring a legislative expert on idiotic concepts like filibustering---in the goddamned HOUSE.

But there are plenty of threads on this issue--go look them up and get all dramatic on them. It seems to be what you're seeking.

You're plainly either spoiling for a fight, or looking for a bunch of equally obtuse "me-too-ers" who will make you feel puffed up and important as you spout your unrealistic and poorly constructed "ideas." Ideas is the kindest way I could phrase it, frankly.

Tina Terrific, the uneducated protester, like you, won't take YES for an answer from the Democrats in the House who ARE trying to end the war. She's a timewasting asshole who should direct her energies towards changing the minds of people who want to keep this war going, not pestering the busy people who are working to end it.

Go on--count those votes. One, two, three, four, five.... We don't have them. Or maybe you can grab YOUR magic wand, since you apparently know how to fix the insurmountable 218 hurdle so easily.

Drop them all into Baghdad, eh? Yeah, that's a mature and well thought out strategy. That'll work...not.

Keep it up, you're doing a heckuvajob!

[TheConstantGardener]

83. I called her a Grieving Mother which is what you would be

had your son PTSD.

You should maybe remove that picture in your signature, because the Dems you support would never say such a thing.

They love President Bush. They just criticize him to get ahead in the political world. They love that he's creating their political careers. They'd never refer to him as a murderer, because Iraq was just a Pleasant Mistake of Good Intentions.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

86. Are You Her? Seriously, Are You?

That would explain a lot actually.

[MADem]

94. The flawed logic, certainly...

I wondered that myself for a moment.

[BlooInBloo]

107. This thread is SO surreal.

[MADem]

91. Oh, please. Just stop. You ARE embarrassing yourself.

And you're going OVER the line, too. Go read those rules. I'm not personally insulting you, I am taking your lousy and limp arguments and tearing them to shreds, like the legs off a spider. You, in return, are replying by grabbing a broad brush and going on the attack, falsely suggesting I am prowar, and saying that the antiwar Democrats that I support, who we don't insult gratuitously here, are all in league with Bush. And that is just not true.

But thanks for showing us how you pull the "logic" thread. It helps in deciding how much time to waste on talking with you, and how seriously one should take your opinions on issues.

You can't argue, and you have a poor grasp of the facts. You have my sympathies.

[MadHound]

97. Votes, Schmotes, we don't even have to bring the war funding to the floor

Remember, the Dems have control of ALL Congressional committees. All that has to be done is to bury each and every single war funding bill so deep in committee that it will never see the light of day. Presto, Chango! The war is defunded, Bushco is forced to bring the troops home.

Easy, simple, all it takes is the will of the Democratic party in order to stop this madness.

Wait, yeah that's right, the Dems still don't have that kind of will.

We're still in deep shit:yoiks:

[MADem]

110. Yeah, that obstructionist shit worked real well for a guy named Newt.

You pull that stunt, and the first kid who dies because he didn't have body armor, because of defunding, would be laid at Pelosi's feet with catastrophic and ever-resonating effects. It's an idiotic idea. A recipe to hand the House BACK to the GOP "adults" (and I use that word with all the sarcasm I can muster).

You'd still need continuing resolutions for other areas of government. It wouldn't surprise me if the Monkey signed an Emergency Executive Order to move that money in a big FUCK YOU to the Congress. Congress is funding highways, and POOOF! the dough ends up in Iraq. Ooooh, you don't think he'd do that, or could do it? Who's gonna stop him? The Supremes??? Who can move like molasses, or not at all, when they want to?

The American people aren't looking for parliamentary games, they're looking for vigorous debate and a vote. But if we go to the floor too soon, and not make a good effort to cut the best possible deal we can get while pulling along as many votes as we can con out of the unwilling, we're fucked.

[MadHound]

139. The American people are looking to end this war as soon as possible, and

By any means neccessary. If "parlimentary games" is what needs to be done, then by God, let's do it.

Oh, and for your own information, the soldiers won't be going without body armor or ammunition. There are currently two methods that the war is funded, via the regular military budgets, which takes care of basics like food, ammo and armor, and these emergency supplementary bills, which takes care of things like the extra gas we're using on missions, hiring mercs, that sort of thing. It is this latter bill, these big 100 billion bills that we need to hold up in committee. We won't be putting soldiers in danger by doing so, we will simply be forcing the war to grind to a halt, and bringing the troops home.

And if Bushboy signs such an Executive Order, then he signs his own death warrant, for that, right there, is grounds for impeachment. Oh, yeah, the Dems seem reluctant to persue that option also.:eyes:

But if Dems continue to pussy foot around this whole idea of ending the war, if they continue to hem and haw, coming up with excuse after excuse to not stop the war, the anti war vote is going to go away in '08, and all of those gains that the Dems got in '06 go away, as will the presidency.

The US population wants this war to end NOW, They want the Dems to end it by any means neccessary. If that means we have to hold these emergency war funding bill in committee, so be it. Go before the public, explain what you're doing, why you're doing it, and the public(who is overwhelming anti war) will support the Dems. And this war will be strangled by lack of money, and the troops will come home.

But waiting for all the stars to align, waiting until there are bullet proof majorities in both Houses and we have the White House means that thousands and thousands more people will die on both sides. This the American public won't stand for, they spoke loud and clear in November that they want out now. You can't wait for perfect, you've got to work with what you've got. And what we have is committee control. I suggest that we use it.

[MADem]

145. You just proved my point. If there's money in one pot, it can be shifted to another.

Believe me, I understand the military funding process. I spent some time in DC trying to get MORE money out of Congress for the greater glory of the Department of Defense. But notwithstanding the process, what you ask for, and what pot it ends up in, that's two different things. The last serious (Pre-911) Pentagon audit revealed that trillions (yes, that is a T) could not be accounted for. If you think they keep their columns neatly added, that's just false.

The only way you can definitively starve this war is to starve the entire nation. That includes children, welfare programs, highways, wounded vets, you name it. That will ensure the Congress goes GOP in 08, because Democrats will be perceived as lunatics who cannot handle the serious business of the nation. It would also decimate our economy.

Sure, moving the money from one pot to another to fund a war may not be "legal" but where do "We, the People" go for recourse if that happens? He'll claim it was LEGAL, and he'll ask the Supremes to rule on it. The Supremes will, first, run down the clock for him while they consider the matter.

And then, if the Supremes come down with a ruling for HIS team (and he's got friends on that court, doesn't he?), there's no CRIME, see? And no CRIME, no impeachment. To say nothing of the fact that a ruling like that would in essence make the Congress a real rubber stamp. There's no motivation to go to the Supremes, because both sides are scared shitless in case the result goes the wrong way. Of course, the Monkey has less to lose--he doesn't care about the NEXT President, he just cares about himself.

But like I said, that won't happen anyway--because the first dead kid who dies from lack of funding (or PERCEIVED lack of funding--the two are interchangeable) will be left on our doorstep. And we cannot have that, morally or politically.

I will keep repeating what Dave Obey said--WE don't HAVE the damned VOTES. We DON'T. No matter how much anyone hectors, gets angry, hops up on a high horse and says what the Dems SHOULD do...we just do not have the votes.

We don't have to wait for bullet proof majorities. We can move forward in increments as we get the numbers we need, where we need them. But we do need solid and sufficient majorities for each stage of this exercise.

Anyone who thinks that we will ever see a "Troops Out Yesterday" type vote, with a lightening quick resolution to this mess, though, is going to be disappointed. Now, you can disagree with my statement all you want, but I will be proven right. Not that I WANT to be, I would prefer we left yesterday, too--but because that's realilty. There will be "Something for Another" trades happening with those who are slow to want to leave for their own selfish reasons, and there WILL be compromise on this matter.

It won't happen immediately. That's not desire, that's just fact. But it will happen eventually. I hope it's sooner, rather than later.

[MadHound]

147. While the Dems move forward in increments, people will die in droves. Can you accept that?

I can't, and the majority of Americans can't either.

As far as your understanding of how the funding process works, well, it seems grossly lacking. Bush cannot, simply cannot shift money from either the regular military budget, or any other budget to fund his war. Why in the hell do you think he has to come up with special war funding bills:shrug:

If he shifts money from the regular budget, or any other budget, he's screwed. It isn't a matter of legality that will be decided, it is a matter of government revolt that he'll have to deal with. Impeachment will be the least of his worries, criminal charges will indeed be in the offing. And while you scoff at Republicans ability to get on board with impeachment, I would suggest that you go check out who was controlling the House at the time of Nixon's fiasco. Impeachment was such a looming possibility that he resigned. Even Republicans have their limits on Presidential shennanigans, and will do the right thing when the shit hits the fan.

Speaking of the Nixon years, please explain to me how come the defunding of the Vietnam war worked well, and why it wouldn't now? And please, don't resort to paranoid fantasies concernning bankrupting government and other such nonsense. It simply can't, and won't happen.

We don't need votes, we have committee control. We have the backing, nay, the demanding of the majority of the population to get us the hell out of Iraq now. Not by increments, not in some mythical future, but NOW. The time has come, defund the war and bring the troops home.

Anything else is excuses, rationalizing and frankly bullshit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. And what Maddem described to you

is how the Vietnam War also came to an end

It wasn't pretty, it wasn't fast... but that is exactly how it worked

And yes, many back then said similar things to you... read the history, you may understand then why it cannot move faster

Oh and to the numbers let me give them to you

At least 2000 US Troops KIA

AT Least 20K injured

Iraqis

At least 50K dead

At Least 100,000 injured

I wish I could take out my wand, go ooogha, ooogha, ooogha, and make this stop, oh hells bells ensure George is not elected by the Supremes and Gore ended as President. Fact is, I can't.

So when you accuse people of not being aware of what the cost will be, we are... it does not make us happy... but if you are going to blame anybody for the glacial speed of the process, which is driving me nuts, blame the Framers, they did that on purpose.

[MadHound]

154. No, you can't take out a wand and go ooogha ooogha ooogha

And make the war stop.

However, as in Vietnam, Congress can take out its spine, stand up and defund the war. It really is that simple. Bury the funding bills in committee and force the troops home.

There is no need to move incrementaly, there is no need to delay. However this is being done for many of the same reasons that it was done during the Vietnam War, politics. Both Dems and 'Pugs are afraid of appearing soft on whatever, and those wonderful corporations than fill the political coffers, well they are doing all that they can to discourage a withdrawl too, thus adding another consideration that our politicians have to consider.

Meanwhile more peopleare dying, more are being wounded, and we're wasting billions upon billions of dollars.

Sorry, but no matter how you equivocate, no matter how much you try to nuance this, the plain and simple fact remains that Congress now has the power to defund the war and bring it to an end. This is what the people want, this is what the world wants. Don't you think that it is time that the Dems did this?

Anything else is political procrastination.

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. Read what MADem wrote

this is not a race, it is a marathon.

We had better numbers and it still TOOK TWO LONG FREAKING YEARS

If you think it happened overnight, well I might as well reach for the magic wand

Oh and actually more than two years, the first attempt happened in 1970 the war was defunded, fully by '73 and we retreated (were thrown out) in '75

[MadHound]

162. Still seems like a hell of a lot quicker, and frankly the only option that we have right now

Go see my post to MadDem below to understand why.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. I read it

and given that little thing called history, with all due respect, I think you are off base

[MADem]

155. Look, maybe you can't accept it, but you need to start wrapping your head around it.

Because more kids WILL die. And that's not a "like it or not" matter, because no one in their right mind LIKES that idea.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Bush has a habit of agreeing to laws passed by Congress, and then attaching "signing statements" to them, that have the effect of his essentially wiping his ass with the document. He is behaving like a Dictator ALREADY. What makes you think he wouldn't do that if he needed money and Congress was unwilling to provide it? He could do it, and he could run out the clock with the Supremes. And why would that surprise anyone? Look at what he's done to privacy rights, to civil liberties...without a fucking squeak out of anyone, really?

I don't know where you get your imaginings of 'paranoid fantasies' but I don't have any, thanks anyway.

What I do have are plain, simple facts, and history. Pay attention, now:

When the war was defunded under Nixon, it didn't happen overnight, although time does seem to compress when viewed through the long lens of history.

The McGovern-Hatfield Amendment OF 1970 was the first attempt at defunding legislation. It FAILED, because they moved too quickly and tried too hard.

It took a couple of YEARS before they were able to make the defunding process happen. And they had a MUCH more comfortable majority than we have now. See?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/92nd_Congress

There were 54 Democrats and 44 Republicans, along with 2 independents, in the 92nd Senate.

The 92nd House had 255 Democrats and 180 Republicans.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had THOSE numbers, eh?

Now, as we all know, the war didn't END until 1/73. So, you see, it wasn't defunded "overnight." It took more than two years to do it. Go on, do a little reading. You'll see that what I am saying is true.

You can get mad at me all you want. You can say I am rationalizing, making excuses, and you can get all righteous and call my assessments bullshit. Why, you did do that ALREADY, didn't you!!!

But I suggest you actually DO study how we extricated ourselves from Vietnam. We're lucky, in fact, because a guy who did it the first time, DAVE "MAGIC WAND" OBEY, was in on the ground floor with that Vietnam defunding process, and his experience might be helpful in truncating the entire miserable process.

It's going to take some time. Don't shoot the messenger. It's unhelpful, and it changes nothing.

[MadHound]

161. Speaking of math, here's some for you

First of all, as you can clearly see, even the 92nd Congress didn't have that magic, bullet proof control that you seem to think that we can't do without. And yet they defunded the war. Hmmm.

Second, as far as the public opinion factor that has been brought up earlier, guess what, with a little massaging, the public would be in favor. Right now as a matter of fact, without the Dems even taking to the bully pulpit, forty five percent of the population would support defunding.

f-o-r-t-y f-i-v-e % <http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm>

Wrap your head around that.

Third, yes it will, and does take time for defunding to work, but it is a hell of a lot shorter time period than what you and the Dems are currently proposing, "moving in increments" passing non-binding resolutions, trying to get bills past the Bushboy's veto pen:eyes: Rather, let us avoid this whole issue of voting, and instead simply hold up all of the war funding bills in committee, forcing the troops to come home. Hell of a lot quicker and easier:shrug: Get on the bully pulpit, rally the people, and bring this war to an end.

Fourth, as far as Bush is concerned, mighty damn hard to attach a signing statement to a funding bill if no funding bill is brought forth. As far as your other paranoid, yes, paranoid delusions go, don't you think that the Congress, including many 'Pugs, who while they are 'Pugs do have an overarching respect for the law, couldn't shut Bush down if he started trying to seize power? Don't you think that the public would pull him from power? Hell, let's do a two-fer here. Hold up war funing in committee AND start impeachment procedings at the same time if you're so goddamn scared of the man. Shit, that will keep him waaaay to busy to try anything stupid. Oh, and if you would look at the other polls I linked to, given Bush's disapproval numbers, I think that we would have the public on our side this time. And it isn't if the scandal-a-week Bush administration doesn't have plenty of hooks to hang an impeachment charge on.

But if we sit here and hem and haw and try to do that political fence sitting act that the Dems are becoming infamous for, well, you and I will still be discussing this issue a couple of years from now, with the same, or more troops in Iraq, and all that will have changed is the numbers of dead and wounded. We simply cannot afford to play anymore political games.

But hey, if the horror of more tens of thousands dead doesn't move either you or the Democratic party, then let me appeal to your politically pragmatic side. If there isn't definitive mass movement of the troops out of Iraq by election day next year, the Dems will lose in a major way. They were elected last fall with one primary, overarching demand by the public. That was to end this war. It wasn't just the anti-war left who contributed to this mandate, but many of those independents, centerists, and yes, even Republicans who recognized the Iraq War for the catastrophe it is. If the Dems fail to follow through, this grand coalition that put the Dems in power will simply fade away, vanish. And that means no Democratic majorities, and no Democratic White House. Instead, these people who brought the Dems to power will go back to voting Republican, voting third party, or staying home in droves out of disgust.

It is time, nea past time, for the Dems to make substanitive movements towards bringing the war to an end. Since they don't have a bullet proof majority, then the only way, the. . .only. . . way, is to tie up each and every single war funding bill in committee and thus defund the war. Anything else is pointless, futile, resulting in three things, more deaths and casualties, more billions wasted, and loss of our current Democratic power.

Wrap your head around that.

[MADem]

163. And here's some math for you. Count the months. The 92nd took over TWO YEARS to do it.

And the work, the first amendment, actually started a full year earlier, in the 91st. That means we'll still be in Iraq THREE years from now, at least, IF we could move as fast as they did--with FEWER people on our side.

The Democrats want to be out in LESS than two years. So, you do the math. You can fling math around all you want...but you only prove MY point.

And your insistence that we send NO funding bills to the President is well, stupid. Millions of people rely on federal funding in one fashion or another--it would ruin our economy. We can't do that. It's also a guarantee that the Democrats would be tossed out of office en masse in two years. And then, we'd have war without end, Amen, because we really WOULD have a rubberstamp Congress.

And, you must be young, or something--you clearly aren't making your point. The Vietnam War had MORE opposition during the period of the 91st and 92nd Congresses than the IRAQ war does TODAY.

Four years INTO Vietnam, the opposition was less--but we're talking about the DEFUNDING period, which was when opposition was at its HEIGHT. And even with that opposition, it took OVER TWO YEARS.

Again, let me provide you with some factual basis to back up this reality you don't want to acknowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War

By the end of 1967, as the war ground on with no end in sight, public opinion polls showed a majority of Americans opposed the war.

But the war ground on for FIVE MORE YEARS AFTER THAT, didn't it? The tipping point, really, was the expansion of the DRAFT--an unending supply for the meatgrinder:


In 1967, the continued operation of a seemingly unfair draft system then calling as many as 40,000 men for induction each month fueled a burgeoning draft resistance movement. On October 16, 1967, draft card turn-ins were held across the country, yielding more than 1,000 draft cards, later returned to the Justice Department as an act of civil disobedience. Resisters expected to be prosecuted immediately, but Attorney General Ramsey Clark instead prosecuted a group of ringleaders including Dr. Benjamin Spock and Yale chaplain William Sloane Coffin, Jr. in Boston in 1968.

The charges of unfairness led to the institution of a draft lottery for the year 1970 in which a young man's birthday determined his relative risk of being drafted (September 14 was the birthday at the top of the draft list for 1970; the following year July 9 held this distinction).

The first draft lottery since World War II in the United States was held on 1 December 1969 and was met with large protests and a great deal of controversy; statistical analysis indicated that the methodology of the lotteries unintentionally disadvantaged men with late year birthdays.<1> This issue was treated at length in a 4 January 1970 New York Times article titled "Statisticians Charge Draft Lottery Was Not Random".


Then came Kerry and the Fulbright hearings, and THEN came the defunding effort. If we follow your "forty five percent" timeline, we'll be in Iraq for another five to seven years.


1968
February: Gallup poll showed 35% approved of Johnson's handling of the war; 50% disapproved; the rest, no opinion. In another poll that month, 23% of Americans defined themselves as "doves" and 61% "hawks".....In March, Gallup poll reported that 49% of respondents felt involvement in the war was an error. .....

1969
March polls indicate that 19% of Americans want the war to end as soon as possible, 26% want South Vietnam to take over responsibility for the war from the U.S., 19% favor the current policy and 33% want all-out military victory.
July 1969: A Gallup poll indicates that 53% of the respondents approve of Nixon's handling of the war; 30% disapprove; the balance have no opinion. ....In October, 58% of Gallup respondents said US entry into the war was a mistake.




You know, if you really wanted to discuss this issue, and not accuse me in ignorant and childish fashion of holding opinions that I don't hold, simply because I am armed with FACTS and not WISHES, I'd be more apt to want to talk this matter over with you. But when you say STUPID things like if the horror of more tens of thousands dead doesn't move either you or the Democratic party... -- as if anyone with a fucking brain LIKES this war, well, it makes me think that you just want to fight, and you aren't interested in hearing SIMPLE, and bitter reality.

Now, if you have a method to change that wishy-washy forty five percent you're talking about into the FIFTY EIGHT percent we saw in JULY of 69, why GEE--we'd be able to figure it certainly won't be any more than FOUR YEARS before we can leave Iraq.

Here's the sad truth. The majority of Americans really think the war is tsk, tsk terrible, but they don't give a fuck because they aren't sacrificing their kids to the cause. It was the draft that acclerated the rising negative poll numbers, it was potential draftees in the streets, demonstrating, that got those numbers up above fifty percent.

Here's an idea that actually might work--a WAR TAX. We'll nail everyone who makes more than a hundred grand a year with a three percent "war tax" on their total income. Well, we NEED the money, after all, to fund those schools, those electrical systems, and sewers, and so forth, for the "freedom loving peoples" in Iraq. We DO need money for Halliburton, after all. The tax has to pay for the war. You want the war, cough up.

That kind of thing would get the selfish pricks on both sides of the aisle to vote against this folly. Because you tie the war tax to total war funding, Bob's Your Uncle.

But to simply CUT funding is an invitation to paint the Democrats with the "Weak on Defense" tag, and it gives BushCo an opening to increase his already-dictatorial powers through use of signing statements, money shifting, and FURTHER abrogation of the Constitution. He has nothing to lose--he can run out the clock and dump this shit on the next President. That "IS" political reality. And you need to wrap your head around it, be practical, and stop wishing rather than seeing things as they are--like it or not.

[MadHound]

168. Please read for comprehension, it really does help

First off, I never stated that I wanted to tie up ALL funding bills in committee, simply the WAR funding bills. Second, if you will go back to that link I posted, the forty five percent figure that I mentioned is responding to the question of whether or not to defund the war. Forty five percent believe that we should. The fifty eight percent figure that you cite is regarding whether or not people thought the Vietnam War was a mistake. Again, go back to the link I provided, and you will find that you have your fifty eight percent. In addition, you will find opposition to the war running in the sixtieth percentile group. The people of today are just as opposed to the Iraq War as people were opposed to Vietnam War, if not moreso.

And God forbid, that the Dems get painted with the "weak on defense" tag. That lame excuse has prevented the party from doing a

nything constructive. With the majority of people in their corner, don't tell me they're still worried about this. Not only do they have the public on their side, but damnit, it is the moral thing to do. Sometimes you have to put your petty little political career aside and do the right thing. After all, it only costs them their job, while their inaction is costing thousands their lives. And again, please read for comprehension. If there is no war funding bill for Bush to sign, he can't attach a signing statement to it, now can he? And please, stop with the paranoia. Yes, Bush is the president, but he is not the almighty, all controlling ogre that you make him out to be. If he starts shifting funds, or other such BS, not only will the Dems(hopefully) jump down his throat, but so to will the 'Pugs, the Supreme Court, and the people of this country. We faced such a situation once with Nixon and came out fine. I'm sure that we can do this again.

And frankly friend, with the pace that the Dems are moving with their strategy, it will be a hell of lot longer than two, three, or even four years before we're out of there. Hell, they can't even get a non-binding resolution through Congress. Therefore the easiest, simplest, mosst efficient and quickest way to do this is to hold up every war funding bill in committee, as I've said before.

Otherwise, we're going to be in Iraq for a long, long time.

[MADem]

169. Well, you might do the same, frankly. I mean, REALLY.

If you don't tie up EVERY dime, BushCo CAN rob Peter to pay Paul, see? WTF do you think I've been SAYING all along??? He can take highway money and give it to Halliburton. He can take infrastructure maintenance money and give it to Brown and Root.

And he can preemptively head to the Supremes for a ruling if anyone challenges him on this "emergency" and "national security" measure, thus cutting off the impeachment avenue while the case is being decided...sloooooowly, and caaaaaareeefuuuuuuulllllly. You can't bag a guy for wiping his ass on the Constitution if that hasn't been determined to be UNConstitutional, see?

AND he can put a bet down on INCREASING his dictatorial powers, all with one blow.

Look, don't shoot the messenger. You like doing that. Like I'm HAPPY about the unfortunate reality. I'm NOT.

You are not showing me a path that will work. You are showing me PIPE dreams, wishes, hopes, things that rely on a massive groundswell of people to rise up and demand change. And then you're making shitty little comments, as if to say I'm not "sincere" or "serious" because I won't put my head up my ass or hope in one hand and shit in another (which leaves one with nothing but a handful of shit).

Sorry, here is the truth--the legislator that brings those jobs to your town, who brought that business to Podunk where your entire family works, who repaired that road going by your house, who improved that school your kid goes to, well, even if he DID vote in ways that continued the war, ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL. He's not going to lose support as QUICKLY as we might like, especially if he's a Porky McBacon king. Not all states are blue states, either--those red leaning states look first in their wallets, and then look around to see if they're being negatively affected by this war. If the body armor making plant is in your district, well, war is good. If the uniform or body bag factory is down the street, same deal. It's NAIVE to think otherwise.

There is NOT enough opposition to this war yet to get over the hump. There isn't. Go on now, get snarky with me, insist I can't read for comprehension when I CAN read what you are saying, but what you are saying is shit, frankly--it's all DREAMS and HOPES and WANTS--it isn't a PATH out of Iraq. Not with the numbers in Congress we have now.

And don't blame ME for the pace -- I'd like it to be faster, too. But without some quid pro quos, some horsetrading, the kind of shit Dave Obey is doing, we will NEVER get out of there.

Maybe if these nitwits who are pestering Pelosi and Obey went to the districts of the pro-war legislators, both Blue Dogs and Republicans, and stood in the freezing fucking cold outside supermarkets and malls, gathering constituent signatures by the thousands on a petition to the legislators in question, maybe these lawmakers might be moved. If they see the names of people who voted for them on the document, maybe they'll sit up and take notice. But hey--so long as these morons troll the halls of Congress and pester the antiwar reps, the prowar ones stroll around fat, enriched and happy.

We likely ARE gonna be in Iraq a long time. I'd rather it be less than two years than more than four, if that's the best we can do.

I'd rather do better than that, but not every Congressional delegation is like the MA one. And there's no one out in those prowar districts trying to change hearts and minds, apparently. Or if there is, they need some HELP.

[MadHound]

172. Argue your limitations loud enough and long enough, and sure enough, they'll be yours

Look, I was one of those people in a red state, who helped take our POS 'Pug Senator down back in November. Many, many millions of people across the country did this. And we did it for one goddamn reason, to put the Dems in charge in order to stop the war BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

And yet the Dems are fiddle fart fucking around with goddamn non-binding legislation and other such shit, while sychophants and suck-ups are busy making excuses for them while the power to stop this war IS IN THEIR HANDS RIGHT NOW!

Push the goddamn bastard! Defund this goddamn war, and let the little shit TRY to shift money from roads, bridges and Social Security. Can you say Constitutional Crisis?! I thought you could, because that is exactly what Bushboy will bring on if he tries that shit. And even the 'Pugs, in all of their respect for government, will not abide for such a seizure of power. They will join with the Dems(if the Dems would act) in kicking Bushboy's ass out of the WH so fast that even your head will spin.

Sorry, but as I said before, you are dealing in paranoid fantasies, and making up excuses for why the Dems aren't acting. You say you hate the killing, well then, there is one way to bring it to an end. Defund it, bury the war funding bills in committee, and dare Bush to bring about a Constitutional crisis on his head.

Anything else is just bullshit and excuses aimed at continuing the death and killing for political purposes. And frankly, if the Dems do continue to go down this path, they'll have the blood of innocents on their hands too, along with their sycophants and suck-ups.

Don't worry, we here in the anti-war movement will continue to pressure those who can bring it to an end, from Bush to the 'Pugs, to those Dems who won't act. For unlike these Dems, we actually want the war to end ASAP. Anything else is unacceptable.

And while you can seemingly accept such bullshit excuses from our so called leaders, most of the rest of us cannot. I hope that your conscience can also deal with that innocent blood too, for by your continuing excuses and enabling, you are simply giving aid, cover and spin to those who could act to end this war, but for petty political reasons choose not to do so. This is not pipe dreams, this is reality. Deal with it.

I'm done with you and this discussion. While you're willing to dither and dather, making excuses for continued inaction, I and the rest of the anti-war movement have a war to stop, and sadly we now have to take on those who we not only put into power, but also thought were on our side. Apparently we were wrong.

So get your last little jab in, tell me how I don't have a grasp on reality. Whatever makes you feel all warm, cozy and clears your conscience. But realize that down your path lies ongoing war for the forseeable future. Hope that you can live with that, I know I couldn't.

Have a nice gig trying to stop the war by increments, hopefully you will soon realize that you're being played for a fool.

[MADem]

173. How can you claim "constitutional crisis" when BushCo is ONLY doing what they've done for the last

SIX years?

This wouldn't be his FIRST signing statement. He's done it a buncha times, and no one has said SQUAT. Naaah, we don't tap phones...except when we DO. We don't open mail....except when we do. We never do warrantless searches...except when we do. What's a few bucks shifted about in comparison to that? Constitutional crisis? I don't think so.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there are lots of "we here in the antiwar movement" who are every bit as eager as you to end this mess, and sooner rather than later, but you aren't gonna see ANY defunding without a critical mass of Congress behind the effort. And like Dave Obey says, we AIN'T got the votes. But you go ahead and see if your magic wand will work better than the one he doesn't have. Keep stomping that foot and calling me the bad guy for pointing out that simple fact. Keep yelling at the antiwar faction of Congress, too, while the prowar types go golfing.

I'm done with you and this discussion, too. You seem to think that because I'm refusing to trot along behind your "Wishing and Hoping" scenario, that somehow I'm a bad guy who WANTS to drag this exercise out, when that's just shitty logic on your part; and that oooh, I "don't have a conscience" and that somehow my grasp of reality makes me an "enabler" and I feel all "warm and cozy." Warm and COZY? Over a war without end, Amen? Give me a break. What a childish and idiotic thing to say. But when you have no rebuttal, it is natural to resort to snark and small cuts.

Those are ineffectual arguments you're tossing at the wall; hoping one will stick--and getting mad at ME and tossing snide insults my way and telling me how I "must" feel when I poke holes in them isn't going to change that fact. That sort of schoolyard taunting may make YOU feel better (though if you are honest with yourself, I don't see how it really can), but it won't end this war. And neither will your half-baked insistence that Nancy Pelosi has the ability to snap her fingers, or Dave Obey wave his wand, and do it your way when they don't have the clout to do it.

Have a nice life.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. For Someone Who Is A Lifelong Democrat I'd Expect You To Have A Better Understanding Of Congress.

Majority party <> Doing anything you want whenever you want.

[TheConstantGardener]

23. "Majority party Doing anything you want whenever you want."

AGain you insult people when you should be trying to make some arguments.

They can cut off spending. They have well over the votes to block funding for the war.

They won't. Pelosi has made OIL PRIVATIZATION one of the "benchmarks" Iraqis must meet before we withdraw.

"GIVE US THE OIL OR WE WON'T LEAVE" basically.

She's motivated by oil.

What are your silly rants motivated by?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Q:What are your silly rants motivated by? A: REALITY

[TheConstantGardener]

40. Go to Baghdad now and fight the war you want to continue

Until it can be "timely ended" (when we have the oil).

Otherwise stop your silly rants now!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. That's The Most Ridiculous And Pathetic Thing You've Said Yet. Shows A Total Lack Of

intellect within debate.

"Hey, if you don't agree with my ignorant assessment on how we can pull out now, then why don't you just go over there and fight the war yourself wah wah wah".

I mean wow, I'm embarrassed for you. Weakest reply I've seen all day. :crazy:

[TheConstantGardener]

64. Go fight in the war Keyboard Warrior

Just go. This disgusting presence isn't helping anyone here. Few disagree with your Party-line apologism, Comrade.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. Awwwww, That's So Cute Now How You've Completely Unraveled. So Silly Willy.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[TheConstantGardener]

79. "Silly Willy"

The height of your argumentation! You and I have devolved into babies here, and I'm afraid we're both scaring off anyone who looks at your side (the BS one : ) or mine at this point.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. I Have Devolved To A Degree In That Manner, Yes.

But in order for you to have devolved, you would've had to have started from some higher place to begin with. Well, ummmm, sorry pal. :rofl:

[MADem]

156. Look your constant accusations to MINDCRIME are getting irritating, and border on insults themselves

You have a comprehension problem. When someone attacks your IDEAS, that isn't an insult towards you. Your ideas DO stink. You haven't any notion how the political process works.

MINDCRIME isn't ranting. You are being given basic facts; truths--and you are refusing to comprehend these facts and truths, and responding by suggesting his reasoned statements are "silly rants."

You need to go read a little history, and then come back with a bit of knowledge if you want to continue the discussion. You're getting tiresome, frankly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. He's been ahem

toombstoned

[MADem]

159. Ah, how lovely. Took long enough!!!

Wonder what he'll call himself when he comes back to life? They DO that sometimes, for some reason. Can't imagine why. Suggestive of a very empty and pathetic life...IMO.

[MADem]

35. Ah, there's the real agenda behind the innocent OP question.

If you hate the Democrats so much, believe that they BETRAYED your trust, and believe that Dave Obey is just hiding his magic voting wand to be MEAN to you, well, you're having trouble with your math.

What part of "We don't have the votes" is so hard to understand?

You CAN actually HAVE the majority, and NOT have the votes. It happens. Often.

[TheConstantGardener]

43. We have the votes we just have too many spineless Democrats

I guess being a shill for a political party is more of a job for some people than actually getting morally just policy passed.

However I voted straight ticket Democrat in November 2006 and I WANT SOMETHING FOR IT.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. You have missed the 100+ hearings so far

including Friday's holy cow moments, aren't you?

You are getting quite a bit out of it already, but I am sure you do not undestand why, and on purpose

[TheConstantGardener]

80. Hearings on almost meaningless things

You think Rove or Cheney are going down? These minor scandals have nothing to do with us stopping this war, not unless the Democrats push MUCH further.

You must be the same sort that thought Watergate was a horrible crime, much worse than what Nixon did every day to ordinary american citizens. Sigh. The indoctrinated of the Political Class...

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Hold it, Nixon didn't step down

and many in his administration, including his AG didn't serve time in Jail?

Damit, we didn't land on the moon either, did we?

What you want will require force of arms, yes it is that radical.

Good luck storming the castle grdily

[MADem]

95. Oh, 'we' do, do 'we?' How do we make these Blue Dogs vote our way, then?

Shall we attach electrodes to their testicles and give them a jolt if they don't cooperate? A little Abu Ghraib encouragement, perhaps? Is that how you plan to get over the hump?

Anyone who thinks we HAVE the votes is not very wired into the count at all. We don't have the votes. Party affiliation isn't the driver, here.

Only a moron who childishly thinks Nancy Pelosi can snap her fingers and force the majority party to vote the way she tells them to would think that.

It doesn't WORK that way. Grow up.

[mike_c]

75. they could at least try, and go on record as being willing to put the good...

...of the nation before their personal political ambitions.

[MADem]

102. What do you think Dave Obey is trying to do? I mean, really?

I can't believe the level of naivete in this forum.

If you would pay attention, you'd know which legislators are antiwar. And you'd leave them the hell alone, and go after the ones that want this war to continue.

It's not Mister Smith Goes To Washington up on the Hill. It never was. You don't seem to understand how LONG it takes to get legislation to the floor. And you want all that work to get FLUSHED with a failed vote, and require the entire process to start all over again.

And let's suppose we CAN get a bill through the House and the even tougher Senate. Then, the Monkey does the veto thing. Without the override votes, whatcha gonna do?

It's politics. It's not High School Drama Class. These antiwar legislators aren't stupid, Dave Obey especially--he's been at this shit since he opposed another war, in Vietnam.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Oh and add kucinish to this

he is also very aware how this works

[mike_c]

108. oh come on, we both know that there are numerous dems who...

...seriously oppose the war. But we both also know that the dem leadership and MANY of the democrats in the house and senate have either triangulated themselves into a corner that they lack the courage to get out of or they have actively supported the war against Iraq from the beginning.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Mike WE, yes you and Me, need to lead

politicos have NEVER led in US History... they just don't

So we need to pester them

[mike_c]

111. yes, but right now you and I cannot enforce the will of the people...

...but Congress can-- IF they can muster the courage to put the good of the nation before their own political ambitions or their aversion to admitting their mistakes. When I speak of the "dem leadership" I mean the leadership in Congress, the party organization that is ultimately charged with representing their constituencies-- and with serving the interests of the nation. Instead, they are failing us miserably. I don't want them to lead the people-- the people have spoken pretty clearly and don't need their leadership. I want them to lead the charge in congress against the failed policies of the Bush administration because, while we can generate the anger, we need the congress to represent our leadership in Washington.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. They will

once they realize they are being left behind and the parade is passing them by

It was the same way with Watergate

Hell, the New Deal... boy that parade took a while to form.

But you and I need to continue our diligence and continue writing letters.

And trust me, they ARE already doing things... 100+ hearings and oversight.

All the current scandals are because the gavel is in our hands.

I know it is hard to be patient... trust me I hate the fact that more kids will die (and Iraqis) due to this insantity

[MADem]

118. YES. Many in the Blue Dog contingent aren't onboard yet. THAT is what OBEY was SAYING.

We DON'T have the goddamned VOTES. And he doesn't have a magic wand to get them.

But with wheeling, dealing and quid pro quo we might be able to get there. Something that some pipedreamers abhor, COMPROMISE, might be mandated, though.

Half a loaf IS better than none. It may not be a full loaf, but it beats starving to death.

That's what Obey is trying to do--horsetrade to get us out of Iraq. But some PollyAnnas want a lockstep, 100 percent Democratic "Let's Get Out" vote--and that is NEVER going to happen. And no amount of bullying Pelosi, insulting Murtha, or hectoring Obey is gonna make that happen.

[mike_c]

119. that is why the dems are failing us and the nation....

You seem willing to simply accept "...that is NEVER going to happen." Fine. I expect more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. I am willing to accept that it will happen

after the horse trading happens and YOU AND I PRESSURE THEM

[MADem]

124. He's taking my words out of context, FWIW.

I said a HUNDRED PERCENT vote will never happen. He extrapolated it to falsely suggest that a SUCCESSFUL vote will never happen.

[MADem]

122. There is NOT going to be a 100 percent OUT NOW vote. It is NEVER going to happen.

There are too many legislators who are up to their asses in war money. But we don't need a hundred percent--we just need ENOUGH.

Your subject line misleads people who skim rather than read into believing I said that a successful vote is not going to happen. That's pretty cheesy, that tactic.


There will be compromise on the road out of Iraq, but it will happen. It may not happen as fast as we might like, it may not happen as soon as we might like, but it will happen.

It would happen sooner if some of these fuckwits pestering the antiwar legislators would spend their energies rallying the constituents of the PROWAR legislators; encouraging them to call, write and make their wishes known.

But that's HARD work. It's easier to wander around the Hill in foolish costumes preaching to the choir and behaving like a nitwit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. And then go on the Internets and complaint that they are not

moving fast enough or worst, they are betraying us

;-)

[mike_c]

127. then they are failing us, plain and simple....

Until they do whatever it takes to end the war against Iraq they are part of the problem rather than the solution. You admit that "...too many legislators who are up to their asses in war money" but then you seem to want to excuse them, or at least to defend them from criticism. I'd go even further and say that all but a handful support the U.S. imperialist foreign policy without reservation.

The war against Iraq is an international crime. There is NO justification for continuing it a single day longer. I won't accept any excuses from members of the supposed "opposition party" who hem and haw and debate and investigate and procrastinate and do their utmost to avoid taking political risks to DO THE RIGHT THING.

[MADem]

131. Don't you understand that we don't NEED every vote? And stop putting false words in my mouth.

I don't "seem" to want to excuse them. Please pay attention. I state a fact, and you ascribe, falsely, your perceived and BLATANTLY incorrect opinion to it.

I'm not "defending them from criticism"--again, reading is fundamental. If you want to go campaign against them, to rally their constituencies against them, why please, be my fucking guest. My sole concern at this stage of the game is a SUCCESSFUL vote, not running around getting revenge on the naughty and recalcitrant stragglers who are disinclined to be moved.

Again, just in case you did not take my meaning--I want a SUCCESSFUL VOTE. I don't care if some people don't follow along-their constituents will take care of them.

You need to grow up and understand how the game is played. You can't stomp your foot and demand anything. Well, you CAN, and no one will pay attention to you.

Politics IS the art of compromise, and like it or not, COMPROMISE is what is going to get those kids home, not your virtual foot-stomping and tantrums. Obey and others are going to wheel, deal, pull strings and horse trade--and get the votes needed to start the process.

Dramatics aren't gonna do it. Arm-twisting, horse trading, and quid pro quo will make this happen. And if you can't see that simple TRUTH, I cannot help enlighten you, because if you don't get it, you just don't get it.

[Synnical]

37. There are plants in our midst

But you know this.

[mike_c]

38. you've got to be joking....

They're "doing the best they can...?" That's pretty pathetic.

[TheConstantGardener]

46. They have enough votes to cut off funding by over 30+ over Republicans

And they're doing the BEST THEY CAN by not doing it.

This is a joke...

[MADem]

120. And guarantee the GOP takes the House back. Don't be foolish. NT

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. Not A Millionth As Pathetic As Voting For The Greens. n/t

[kdpeters]

143. Not good enough, whoever you think you are

If they are doing the best they can, then their best sucks. The OP has clearly been paying attention and has done some research to see what's going on. She gave examples. It's unnacceptable either way -- whether they're dragging their feet, or leaving us incommunicado with whatever they're doing. Both are unnacceptable.

I note that you didn't bother to give any examples of just what it is the Democrats are doing that represents their best. So kindly stop preaching and start making some sense.

[leeroysphitz]

160. Bullshit. What a load of complete bullshit.

[TheConstantGardener]

5. Pelosi is a shill for AIPAC(hyper-right wing lobby of Israelis)

Clinton is as well. Obama hired one of their people for one of his top campaign staff members.

We have a few people like Kucinich, Lee, Conyeres, who are philosophically antiwar.

The rest would love to have decimated Iraq if it didn't make the public so angry. After all, it's good for business.

[cali]

141. Sure. Right. That's why the MAJORITY of House dems

and 21 dem Senators, and 1 independent voted against the IWR, but they really want to decimate Iraq. Yep, that makes about as much sense as the rest of your collection of pitiful posts. In fact, I've never seen anyone on DU rack up such a number of ignorant, pathetic posts in such a short period of time. Quite an accomplishment.

[Cerridwen]

9. First, welcome to DU and a recommend for your thread.

Next...where to begin?

As much as I sometimes might wish DU were representative of the Democratic Party, I don't believe we are. (These are my opinions and there will definitely be others who have different opinions.) I think we are more representative of a piece of the Democratic Party which works to stay more politically informed. Many people, in the "real" world, don't have that luxury of time or technology.

I also think our "representatives" vary in their responses based on their reason for becoming our representatives. I.e., to further their career or to represent their constituency.

Next, our representatives come from different constituencies which may or may not support the war. If their constituency has recently changed direction against supporting the war, the representative may not yet have "gotten the message." Some are trying to paddle down the middle of the "mainstream" others are more secure in their positions and can veer one way or the other.

And for the final (for this post) and most cynical reason; follow the money. Are they making more money from their constituency or from corporate backers who support a continued war effort.

edit to add: also, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=437353&mesg_id=437353">this link which discusses more about the issues facing Democrats.

[WiseButAngrySara]

49. This was helpful as was your link. Thanks. ...n/t

[Cerridwen]

93. Hey, thanks for saying so.

Sometimes I post as much for someone who might be scrolling and reading as I do to respond to the OP. You just proved someone is reading.

:hi:

[LSK]

14. Walter Reed

Why dont you look and see where the Dems want the money to go.

Did you read the appropriation bills???

[thethinker]

17. Most of the country wants the war to end

It is not just the posters on DU. They want the war to end NOW.

[TheConstantGardener]

63. It's too bad we don't have the money or clout of AIPAC otherwise Pelosi would LISTEN

nt

[earth mom]

136. You can say that again!

I am totally fed up and pissed off with the lot of them in DC. :grr:

[Miss Chybil]

18. Your guess is as good as mine. nt

[BlooInBloo]

24. self-delete - posted to wrong spot.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Procedure, cloture

we don't have the votes to overide a Presidential Veto, but I am sure you knew that

[Sybil_23mist]

53. I've not heard

any strong and consistent calls for stopping the war from the higher ups in the Dem party lately let alone any direct and consequential actions. Not even any movement in that direction. Highly disappointing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. They will after they raelize they are being left behind

that is the history of the US.

Get yourself a copy of Howard Zinn's A Popular History of the United States...

Then start pestering your reps and I mean hard. I am sure mine sees me as a pest these days, and she's a Dem, but I send her an email a week, at least

;-)

Hell, even sent her a US Constitution after Nov 7th,

[TheConstantGardener]

61. You have the votes to cut off funding and fail every funding bill for occupation

But I wish you knew that.

Stop saying "they're doing the best they can" when these people damn well have options they haven't used yet while our kids die. It's an insult to the dead. We do not insult the dead.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Do we have the votes to overcome a

Presidential veto?

No, we don't

Damn math...

[TheConstantGardener]

73. Why would you HAVE to overcome a veto?

If you fail every spending bill, the WAR ENDS. The President can't write his own funding bills for the war. These are special appropriations you can fund and block them as you will while funding the rest of the budget.

This is what the Out of Iraq Caucus and Progressive Caucus is pushing. THESE people were right on the war from the beginning. Why are you trusting the "reformed" warmongers over the people who were right all along? Are you saying John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee don't understand congressional law?

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. It does?

Ok, please do school all of us

So we stop the spending bill

What do you want to stop funding? THE VA? Perhaps Medicare for VETS over 65

You know spending bills usually are sent by the President,

Then the Congress, both houses, come up with their own versions, then they go into conference and finally They are re signed... I am sure you knew that

Now tell me exactly how this will work in your fantasy land

For the record, when the Democrats had a spending bill that stopped funding for the war in Vietnam, they had the votes to overcome a veto

But I am sure in your grand knowledge of US History that the rest of us seem to lack... you already knew this.

Oh I forgot, Komrad

[thereismore]

34. Yes, the dems capitulated on the "surge." The soldiers are fucked. nt

[vssmith]

41. I am not voting for anyone who voted for the IWR

I have been a life long Democrat--I have voted since 1968. This war has been a travesty and anyone that was stupid or gutless enough to vote for its authorization is not getting my vote (PERIOD).

[WiseButAngrySara]

71. Ditto. ....n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

151. Same here

[babylonsister]

47. Sybil just stirred the pot! Welcome to DU, Sybil_23mist.

"This seems conflicting". Ya think? :spray: You HAVE been reading DU! :)

[leftofthedial]

48. goddamned democrats

are barely better than repukes

[Mojorabbit]

89. I think if they really wanted to end the war

you would see a gazillion bills come up defunding it or calling for an immediate redeployment worded in a gazillion subtle and unsubtle ways. Debate would be forced. Dems would be all over the networks raising the issue. They would be rallying the people to their side by sending emails and appealing to those that oppose the war to call their reps and senators. They already know the majority of the population want us out. The will is not there. If they put as much energy into it as they do when contacting me for money pre-election it could be done. So no, I don't think they really want to end it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. The houise maybe

the senate, we don't have the votes for cloture, educate yourself

[Mojorabbit]

101. I am educated, thank you very much

I am talking pressure. Political pressure. Political pressure which can change votes. It takes leaders willing to go out on a limb and force the issue. Pussyfooting around won't do it. As public support grows politicians on the opposite side of the isle start worrying about re election. It takes leadership and the will to use it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. WRONG, it trakes you and me to change those votes

on critical issues like this politicos follow, they almost never lead

Serious read here for you

A Popular History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

[Mojorabbit]

113. We elect them to lead

Every poll says the people want out of Iraq. What does it take? Are they going to wait till 100 percent of the public want it to end? With all the polite people posting lately on this board who are appalled that someone might disrupt a hearing with an impeach message or dare to dress up for street theater at an antiwar protest I don't see that happening.

Thirty percent of the population and war profiteering corporations still believe in this war and they are holding the rest of us hostage.

If every one of the Dems were on the tv every night forcefully talking like Murtha saying we have lost this war, the people want out, the generals say we can't win militarily, etc etc and bring the message home.. the political tide changes and the politicos who want to keep their jobs finally do the peoples will.

I only see a few doing this, the rest pussyfoot around with no clear message or try to keep a foot in both camps. Look at how the Republics stay on message with their talking points and sway public opinion and how long that worked.I don't see the will to end the war only the wish to be on record as being against the war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. Have you sent a lettter lately?

And no we do not elect them to lead, we elect them to REPRESENT US, and insofar as a member of congress, it matters not if the country is against the color green, if most people in their district want it... it stays... simplistic, perhaps, but that is teh way it works, and why it is CRITICAL that you WRITE to them early and often with your concerns

[Mojorabbit]

129. I have sent a gazillion letters

I have called, I have attended vigils and protests. I cannot make them stand up and do what the majority of the population wants. I spoke with my vote and they know they were swept into power on an antiwar vote.

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. Then continue doing that

they are now in the horse trading strage... but they still need to hear from you, regularly, and email makes it very easy these days

Politics is a game and by design getting the votes needed is not easy or fast. If you need to blame anybody, blame the founders.

[TheConstantGardener]

99. Or a simple hearing on war crimes would end it

Once the American people see the egregrious carnage and breaking of international law by the Administration they will DEMAND an end to it and anyone who votes against it will be thrown out of office even in very red districts...

Instead their hearings are about "halliburton getting paid too much" and small-scale corruption investigations.

They don't want to talk war crimes. Because to them Bush and company are just incompetent cronyists, not immoral cruel human beings. Because then they'd have to admit their own complicity in all of this. And that'd be too much to ask.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. Hold it you said hearings did nothing

and now you want hearings?

Oy vey shmeer....

[razors edge]

96. Welcom to DU Sybil

We can have a million different opinions and bitch slap each other around, but it all comes down to this.

We the people have not controlled the country for a very long time. Bankers pull the strings and our so called leaders dance like marionettes to the tune dejure.

No politician gets elected without financing.

Financing is controlled by the private banks, the Federal Reserve being the largest private bank.

The banks are controlled by the elite of elites.

This is a matter of controlling global assets that will determine the distribution of wealth in the future. Control of oil is primary to enable a country to produce goods and export them for profit. Any country who cannot do so has no way of paying back loans and is therefore a credit risk.

No politician who would pull out of the region will ever get the financing needed to prevail.

Our national debt is too great to ever allow the US to become insolvent, so we continue to fund the madness through whatever means necessary.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

98. The Bush junta is still very powerful

Dems have a gun to their head?

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Some may assume that

seriously

It is a cute white powder, if you recall that has not been resolved yet

[BlackVelvet04]

112. This whole thread is unbelievable....

hook, line and sinker.

[Subdivisions]

130. Where are the mods? This thread is a train wreck through

no fault of the original poster, whom I welcome to DU and apologize for the obvious hijacking of your post.

Edited to add: re: foolishness upthread

[Sybil_23mist]

144. Perhaps we can restore the discussion as there is concern out there

Of course my concerns only reflect a growing discomfort for the marquee Dems (kudos to Maxine Waters for being real) who have capitulated with the BushCo agenda using such political rhetorical cover such as "our national interests" or "politically impractical."

It's not only disconcerting but it's consistency is alarming.

When the idea of winning political office is completely severed from the ideas that make winning worthwhile, then "winning" loses all meaning.

Thus, "pragmatism" now means diametric opposition from those who, in theory, could be progressive, as opposed to diametric opposition from true believers.

Since even educated people accept this false dichotomy, then the only sane conclusion is to say that, yes, the Democrats will continue to fool people. The result will continue to be as it has been for a generation now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. Write letters

politicians never lead the parades, they get ahead of them as the parade passes them by

Read "A Popular History of the United States," by Howard Zinn for insignts into this.

But will give you examples

They did not get ahead of labor, labor did

They did not get ahead of child protection laws, we did.

They did not get ahead of civil rights, we did

They did not get out of Vietnam, not until the parade was half way down the street that is.

[Sybil_23mist]

152. I think

you are referring to "A People's History of The United Staes", by Howard Zinn. I've read it in full twice and refer to it on a regular basis. Great book as a baseline understanding and launching point for further investigations into American history.

If what we think of as a solution is to write our Reps, which I have- as well as many phone calls, petitions and rallies-then I believe we haven't really completely understood what Howard Zinn was teaching us. Our reps have simply not listened after repeated entreaties. It's obvious and well-documented.

Are you familiar with "The Forging of the American Empire", by Sidney Lens? There is a new forward by Howard Zinn worth reading:

This is the story of a nation—the United States—that has conducted more than 160 wars and other military ventures while insisting that it loves peace. In the process, the U.S. has forged a world empire while maintaining its innocence of imperialistic designs.

From Mexico to Lebanon, from China to the Dominican Republic, from Nicaragua to Vietnam, the U.S. has intervened regularly in the affairs of other nations. Yet the myth that Americans are benevolent, peace-loving people who will fight only to defend the rights of others lingers on. Excesses and cruelties, though sometimes admitted, usually are regarded as momentary aberrations.

In this comprehensive history of American imperialism, Sidney Lens punctures the myth once and for all by showing how the U.S., from the time it gained its own independence, has used every available means—political, economic, and military—to dominate other peoples.

In early 2003, Michael Ignatieff, a Harvard professor, wrote in the New York Times:

America’s empire is not like empires of times past, built on colonies, conquest and the white man’s burden. We are no longer in the era of the United Fruit Company, when American corporations needed the Marines to secure their investments overseas. The 21st century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy.

Only someone blind to the history of the United States, its obsessive drive for control of oil, its endless expansion of military bases around the world, its domination of other countries through its enormous economic power, its violations of the human rights of millions of people, whether directly or through proxy governments, could make that statement.

—From the foreword by Howard Zinn


"The observations Sidney Lens made of American imperialism in the 1970s are still valid today. You could say they were prophetic. I’m so glad this book is being republished. It couldn’t be timelier.”

—Studs Terkel

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. Ok writing letters is part of the process

demonstrating is part of the process

As to the US being an Empire

ABSOLUTELY

And NO empire in history has given it up willingly... they have fallen only from external AND internal pressure

(And ours did not start in the 1970s but quite possibly on August 15th, 1945 and the first steps toward empire were taken by FDR)

You and I are part of that internal pressure.

Nevertheless, bellyaching is not helping, nor is the lack of understanding of how the system works

I will point out that there is always a second alternative, and it may come to that...

In the course of humans affairs...

You fill in the blanks

But, the point still stands, Politicos NEVER lead the parade... they always get behind them...

And we lead the social change, and at times it is painfully slow.

Hell slavery took close to seventy years to end... officially at least... they didn't give up just because the South had a lock in the control of the committees in the House and Senate

It sounds like you are willing to give up, nothing personal, after the first two months of this new majority. This is not a race, but a marathon

[omega minimo]

126. Yeah. Right.

Hey! Where'd Sybil_23mist go?!!!!!!111????

"This seems conflicting."

DU CANNOT be this gullible.

Can it?

:wow:

[Sybil_23mist]

142. Had to get some sleep

Sorry I wasn't able to respond to all the posters but it was quite late and I grew weary.

By gullible I'm not sure what you mean but it is an appropriate word I think as I do see an immense amount of gullibility here but probably not in the sense you mean it.

[Justice Is Comin]

128. I'm very concerned about the age and health

of the honorable Senator Byrd. I wish him another 150 years but he's taking ten minutes to say ten words now.

I hope he's eating his Wheaties and has long genealogy in his family.

[MADem]

132. Well, the governor in WV is a Democrat--how do they handle vacancies in that state, anyone know?

If it's the standard way, a governor appoints, followed by a special election, well, we're good for a while, and longer if there's a good Democratic candidate in the wings.

Of course, since there's no immediate worry, he'll likely live forever. I hope he does!

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. At least in fiction

he is the model I used for a sci fi character... and I have read all his speeches since at least 2000

His speech before the war... very, VERY moving

[MADem]

135. Yep, helluva guy. Love his pocket Constitution, too. NT

[loyalsister]

137. I see a lot of nuance to this.

First off, we must not forget we made a mess of someone else's home.
We got a lot of people into a civil war that does not belong to them.

There are a significant number of people in Iraq who before we started this had jobs and were living stable lives. As horrible as Sadaam was, there was that.
They keep talking about demands for "benchmarks" for this immoral war we started. Meanwhile the millions of victims of our crime continue to accumulate. The peace movement here is not focused on those losses.
Until we renounce citizenship, we own that war and we own that crime. To me that means that sacrifice to make this right is part of the deal. We owe them. We need to look for solutions that are going to help them achieve peace.

For people in congress who have an ounce of moral clarity in regards to the crime we committed in the first place, it does not matter who started it. They should be thinking about helping them find peace.

I hope that members of congress are trying to figure out how to make it right even if they aren't ready to to commit us to the national apology and reparations the Iraqi people deserve.
If we want to become relevant good world citizens again, our policy makers should show concern for more than the American lives lost.

[grannylib]

138. They still don't get it; or if they do, they're as complicit in all this as the

reThugs. I am sure there are many Dems who are quaking at the thought of investigations. Lots of them are just flip sides of the reThug coin - beholden to big money special interests.

[leftchick]

140. It is really quite simple

the majority of Democrats have an allegience to AIPAC/DLC and Corporations. What we, thier constituents want really does not play into their actions at all. And with an election coming up of course they need to appear to be "tough on terra". They are as complicit as any repub with a few exceptions like Dennis Kucinich.

[Festivito]

146. Careful. Please, don't you become too dissonant.

Remember that our politics is like rule by committee. Disharmony happens.

Even Republicans with all three branches did not have total control. We still had filibusters. Now, RepubliCONs have filibusters(60 votes). Plus CONs have the veto(67 votes). They also have a nasty practiced think-tank fostered skill at parlimentary procedural abuse.

Dems have 51 Senate votes, but one voting member in hospital and Cheney makes it 50 CON to 50 Dem votes in Senate. Strangely precarious.

There is nothing better for the corrupt CONs than for US to become dissonant, discouraged, disgusted, ..., and for us to vote FOR CONs, by US, voting for third parties that ONLY HELPS CONs, or not voting at all, ALSO HELPING CONs.

TIN FOIL ALERT:
But, the way I see it all is with the military industrial complex that Eisenhower gave concern. These corps fund think-tanks. Think-tanks feed the media by making it easier to find commentary. Leaving us to fight the media, while our representatives fight the media and an under-informed US for campaign funding. It's a recipe for the disaster we currently see.

There is more, and I would continue, but We'd need another layer of tin foil.

[proud2BlibKansan]

149. First of all, welcome to DU!

And yes, the Dems are supporting the war. It pains me to report that but they are indeed.

[Bridget Burke]

165. You've always been 100% happy with every Democratic politician?

I'm not happy with all the Dems in DC. Other posters have pointed out some reasons for the Dem's actions. (Or lack of same.) Sufficient? I'm not sure.

However--I'm also a lifelong Democrat. A Texas Democrat, at that. A (D) after a politician's name is, unfortunately, no guarantee of excellence. (Didn't you ever read Molly Ivins?)

So--don't get dizzy & confused. Just put the pressure on any Democratic reps who need it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. Like mine

Saturday she was trying to convince us why we still to spend money on this debacle... in a way that made me go... wait a damn minute... she could not see a problem with the war perse either

Still formulating the smackdown to be sent by ground mail to her

And no, not asking her to defund the war... I want the funding to be there when we pull back... and I want the money to be there for our vets

[Bridget Burke]

167. Sounds like you're doing the right thing.

But the OP seems ready to collapse on the chaise & send for the smelling salts.

Democrats doing wrong? How unprecedented! (I wish.)

[MilesColtrane]

171. The majority of Democratic elected officials are afraid.

Beginning phased withdrawal two months before the 2008 elections will appeal to the Democratic rank and file, because their elected officials would be finally responding to their wishes. However, the inevitable horrible escalation of sectarian reprisals will only be just beginning.

Let me be clear. I'm not arguing for continued occupation. I do think there will be a nasty shock to some who believe that when the U.S. leaves Iraqis will simply lay down their weapons and join hands.

All of the past, and future, death and destruction wrought in that country lies squarely at the feet of Bush, Cheney, and the Republican party.

It's going to be nasty, but just like pulling a tooth it should be done quickly.

Congress needs to quit trying to figure out some kind of political soft landing to this war and do the right thing.
We want out of Iraq now!!!