Dems betray public, give into Bush - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ratbastid · 05-24-2007, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I still don't get your point about Congress not existing, I re-read it a few times, perhaps you can clarify your point.

There's really no point. You're committed to misunderstanding in the way that slants toward your world-view.

In my life I've had lots of really great conversations with people I disagree with--conversations that expanded both parties. What that requires is intellectual honesty and a willingness to interact reasonably with the other party's assertions. I despair of ever having such a conversation with you, aceventura3.

roachboy · 05-24-2007, 08:23 AM

ace: you're being obtuse again. get a grip.

more generally: if the war in iraq is not a legitimation crisis for the system itself, then what could possibly be one?
if there is no possibility of legitimation crisis, no possiblity of reconsideration of what we do and how we do it at the fundamental level, then the simple fact of the matter is that such political "freedoms" as we have mean nothing because, when it gets down to it, we have NO POWER to change ANYTHING when a situation arises like this--one that demonstrates the incompetence of the actors that make up that system, their lack of judgement, their incapacity to think in ways that do not take their own institutional position to be an a priori.
if the war in iraq is not a legitimation crisis for this political order, then i submit that there is no possible legitimation crisis for this order because the nature of this order is to not acknowledge any fundamental challenges to it, not even those that result from ineptness within the order itself.
so we live in a type of authoritarian bureaucratic system the principle quirk of which is that the internal discourse within that system is geared around the rhetoric of freedom and popular sovereignty. but the fact is that this discourse is nothing but words. it means nothing. it is a management tool.
people only have power if there exists the possibility that they can collectively act to change the existing system.
our collective actions are limited to faction rotation within that system.
we have no access to the structure of that system.
we can do nothing about it.

how many peope have died in iraq as a result of this fuck up?
hwo many more will die as this incoherent system operates to protect itself as such, dicking around, offering idiotic pseudo-solutions to a crisis of its own making?
is it the fact that iraq is far away and inhabited by folk we have been conditioned to not like that prevents it from being a fundamental crisis for *THIS* political system, the one that is wholly and solely responsible for teh disaster that has been unfolding there?

powerclown · 05-24-2007, 09:00 AM

Ace, I feel your exasperation. At the very least, the Repubs have a clear, unmistakable message to the American people: continue funding the troops, continue fighting, continue to try to put Iraq back together again, no withdrawal. The Repubs - right or wrong - have a plan and are acting upon it. The Dems are obviously still in a state of confusion over Iraq...after 4+ years, there is still no coherent, unanimous Democratic position about what to do about Iraq. They can't decide whether to stay or go. We all know what Bush wants, but do we know what the Dems want? What makes their incoherence even more strange is that the American people, in November 2006, told them in no uncertain terms that they want the Dems in charge of policy decisions in Iraq from now on. They've been given carte blanche by the American people to reverse the mistakes Bush has made, but for some reason they can't get their act together.

Here's Olby's take on the Dems failure to put through recent house supplementals calling for a timeline for troop withdrawal:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H00zSRc7LJw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H00zSRc7LJw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

roachboy · 05-24-2007, 09:16 AM

so what i take it you are saying, powerclown, is that everything considered, your political preferences float toward the clearest memes.

at least you're up front about it.

Rekna · 05-24-2007, 09:18 AM

I love Olberman. I agree with him that the Dems should fight harder and should keep sending back the exact same bill. This new bill hasn't passed yet and hopefully with fail to get through the house.

tecoyah · 05-24-2007, 09:46 AM

Face it folks....Bush stilll has the upper hand, and will continue to have it until the end of 2008. The congress is limited due to its lack of votes, and MUST allow presidential authority to play out, regadless of the outcome. Welcome to U.S Politics in action.......we can only hope for a best case scenario.

QuasiMondo · 05-24-2007, 09:48 AM

So that's what they're going to go back to the people with? "Hey, at least we gave it a shot, that counts for something, right?"

Rekna · 05-24-2007, 09:54 AM

The republicans are painting themselves in a corner come the 2008 elections. If they are still in Iraq come that election they are likely to loose seats in both the senate and the house and the oval office also. If the dems manage to get 60 seats in the senate they will be able to ram as much legislation through as they want and the republicans will not be able to do a thing to stop it. You will see massive changes to everything.

dc_dux · 05-24-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Ace, I feel your exasperation. At the very least, the Repubs have a clear, unmistakable message to the American people: continue funding the troops, continue fighting, continue to try to put Iraq back together again, no withdrawal. The Repubs - right or wrong - have a plan and are acting upon it. The Dems are obviously still in a state of confusion over Iraq...after 4+ years, there is still no coherent, unanimous Democratic position about what to do about Iraq. They can't decide whether to stay or go. We all know what Bush wants, but do we know what the Dems want? What makes their incoherence even more strange is that the American people, in November 2006, told them in no uncertain terms that they want the Dems in charge of policy decisions in Iraq from now on. They've been given carte blanche by the American people to reverse the mistakes Bush has made, but for some reason they can't get their act together.

Powerclown...I agree that the Democrats have a bigger tent then the Republicans and encourage debate among themselves.

But you continue to ignore the fact that 219 (out of 238) Dems in the House and all 51 Dems in the Senate signed on to a bill that was sent to the President...with a plan that is as equally, if nor more coherent than "surge and staty the course" plan that has shown NO measurable evidence of success in the last 3 years.

A majority of the House and Senate and an even greater majority of the American people support a phased redeployment plan (not to mention the majority of the Iraq parliament and the Iraqi people), but the current political enviroment makes that impossible.

Politics, indeed, works in funny (or tragic) ways.

aceventura3 · 05-24-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Ace, I feel your exasperation. At the very least, the Repubs have a clear, unmistakable message to the American people: continue funding the troops, continue fighting, continue to try to put Iraq back together again, no withdrawal. The Repubs - right or wrong - have a plan and are acting upon it. The Dems are obviously still in a state of confusion over Iraq...after 4+ years, there is still no coherent, unanimous Democratic position about what to do about Iraq. They can't decide whether to stay or go. We all know what Bush wants, but do we know what the Dems want? What makes their incoherence even more strange is that the American people, in November 2006, told them in no uncertain terms that they want the Dems in charge of policy decisions in Iraq from now on. They've been given carte blanche by the American people to reverse the mistakes Bush has made, but for some reason they can't get their act together.

Here's Olby's take on the Dems failure to put through recent house supplementals calling for a timeline for troop withdrawal:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H00zSRc7LJw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H00zSRc7LJw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Thanks, I never would have thought I would agree with Oberman.

dc_dux · 05-24-2007, 06:23 PM

I think I am beginning to understand Bush's concept of the will of the people, as well as his conviction.

When a majority of the Congress and the American people express their opinion that it is time to replace his failed strategy with something new that includes a plan for phased redeployment, the Bush response is "we must stay to fight al Queda there so they dont have to fight them here (he only referred to al Queda 19 times in his 60 minute press conference)

That is until, the Iraqi paliament says otherwise:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no."

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

So its damn the American public and Congress, but he will only answer to the will of the Iraqi government. Oh well, there goes his conviction about staying to fight those al Queda wannabees if the radical Muqtada al-Sadr, who may very well control a majority block in the Iraq parliament, says get out. (Sadarist Push US Withdrawal Timetable)

I think the bird dumping on Bush during the press conference is highly symbolic or at the very least, amusing and well deserved for a man who has such crappy conviction for the democratic process.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3209176

powerclown · 05-25-2007, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Powerclown...I agree that the Democrats have a bigger tent then the Republicans and encourage debate among themselves.

But you continue to ignore the fact that 219 (out of 238) Dems in the House and all 51 Dems in the Senate signed on to a bill that was sent to the President...with a plan that is as equally, if nor more coherent than "surge and staty the course" plan that has shown NO measurable evidence of success in the last 3 years.

A majority of the House and Senate and an even greater majority of the American people support a phased redeployment plan (not to mention the majority of the Iraq parliament and the Iraqi people), but the current political enviroment makes that impossible.

Politics, indeed, works in funny (or tragic) ways.

I think if the Dems took a unified stand on a timetable for withdrawal, and pushed the issue much more aggressively, things would change. More and more Repubs would start abandoning Bush, and the force of public opinion would get things passed in congress. I'm not convinced the Dems *want* this war stopped.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think I am beginning to understand Bush's concept of the will of the people, as well as his conviction.

When a majority of the Congress and the American people express their opinion that it is time to replace his failed strategy with something new that includes a plan for phased redeployment, the Bush response is "we must stay to fight al Queda there so they dont have to fight them here (he only referred to al Queda 19 times in his 60 minute press conference)

That is until, the Iraqi paliament says otherwise:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no."

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

So its damn the American public and Congress, but he will only answer to the will of the Iraqi government. Oh well, there goes his conviction about staying to fight those al Queda wannabees if the radical Muqtada al-Sadr, who may very well control a majority block in the Iraq parliament, says get out. (Sadarist Push US Withdrawal Timetable)

I think the bird dumping on Bush during the press conference is highly symbolic or at the very least, amusing and well deserved for a man who has such crappy conviction for the democratic process.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3209176

Bush replaced Rumsfeld supported by Congress.
Bush put Patraous in place, supported by Congress.
Bush modified the military strategy on the ground with new tactics and an increase in troops, supported by Congress.

So, from Bush's point of view he has changed.

On your second issue, Bush has used a communication strategy to dumbfound his opponents. He knows the Iraq government is weak, he knows they can not survive without our support, he knows they won't ask us to leave, so he crates a strawman condition that his opponents are baffled by. Pretty good for a guy as dumb as he is said to be. And he says it with kinda like a hidden Cheshire Cat smile. If this wasn't so serious I would be laughing out loud given what he is doing and the response he gets.

Elphaba · 05-27-2007, 05:51 PM

We will continue to have these deadend debates as long as we are willing to accept the serial reasons that have been given by the Bush administration to justify our presence there. How many have there been between "weapons of mass destruction" and "we must fight them there so they don't follow us here?"

Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq throughout the remainder of his term, no matter what consequences his resistance has on the Republican party. He has committed our military indefinately for only one purpose; the acquisition and control of Iraq's and Iran's oil fields. I believe that any honest discussion regarding our current foreign policy must begin with oil: Who has it, and how can we take it from them?

Ron Paul is our only congressional representative that is willing to state that we have invested the lives of our military and the Iraqi citizens for the enrichment of Bush and Cheney's Big Oil interests. Many others know it to be true, but remain silent. Does anyone here doubt Sen. Clinton's knowledge of US energy policy, past and present?

I will say it once again. It has always been about the oil.

Link

Quote:

What Congress Really Approved: Benchmark No. 1: Privatizing Iraq's Oil for US Companies
By Ann Wright
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

Saturday 26 May 2007

On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq. The members called it "supporting the troops." I call it stealing Iraq's oil - the second largest reserves in the world. The "benchmark," or goal, the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded Iraq is privatization of Iraq's oil. Now they have Congress blackmailing the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no reconstruction funds.

This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)

No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billion dollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.

What does this "Support the Troops" legislation mean for the United States military? Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this bill, other than keeping them there for another 30 years to protect US oil interests. It means that every military service member will need Arabic language training. It means that every soldier and Marine would spend most of his or her career in Iraq. It means that the fourteen permanent bases will get new Taco Bells and Burger Kings! Why? Because the US military will be protecting the US corporate oilfields leased to US companies by the compliant Iraqi government. Our troops will be the guardians of US corporate interests in Iraq for the life of the contracts - for the next thirty years.

With the Bush administration's "Support the Troops" bill and its benchmarks, primarily Benchmark No. 1, we finally have the reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to get easily accessible, cheap, high-grade Iraq oil for US corporations.

Now the choice is for US military personnel and their families to decide whether they want their loved ones to be physically and emotionally injured to protect not our national security, but the financial security of the biggest corporate barons left in our country - the oil companies.

It's a choice for only our military families, because most non-military Americans do not really care whether our volunteer military spends its time protecting corporate oil to fuel our one-person cars. Of course, when a tornado, hurricane, flood or other natural disaster hits in our hometown, we want our National Guard unit back. But on a normal day, who remembers the 180,000 US military or the 150,000 US private contractors in Iraq?

Since the "Surge" began in January, over 500 Americans and 15,000 Iraqis have been killed. By the time September 2007 rolls around for the administration's review of the "surge" plan, another 400 Americans will be dead, as well as another 12,000 Iraqis.

How much more can our military and their families take?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army and US Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. She served 16 years in the US diplomatic corps in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Micronesia and Mongolia. She resigned from the US Department of State in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq.

shakran · 05-27-2007, 07:28 PM

Olbermann nailed it. The democrats HAVE betrayed the public. They've caved, and they've shown why they have such a hard time getting elected. They had a mandate from the people and instead of fighting for the people they tucked tail and gave up. Pathetic.

tecoyah · 05-28-2007, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Olbermann nailed it. The democrats HAVE betrayed the public. They've caved, and they've shown why they have such a hard time getting elected. They had a mandate from the people and instead of fighting for the people they tucked tail and gave up. Pathetic.

Actually, it seems to me the Dems are trying to do what they were elected to do, but are in this case.....Failing. They have placed before Bush a direction change, and he vetoed it. They then tried a compromise bill, in hopes of at least bending the course in a more reasonable direction, and placing some small measure of accountability into this war....only to face a second veto.
To place the blame on Congressional Democrats seems somewhat misdirected in my opinion, as they are fighting with hands tied behind backs. Knowing how the political process (feeble though it may be) works in this country right now, an honest evaluation would give credit where it is due. I have a feeling that once Bush loses what little support his party still lends him, we will see the required change in policy and get out of this Clusterf@ck we call a war.

host · 05-28-2007, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Olbermann nailed it. The democrats HAVE betrayed the public. They've caved, and they've shown why they have such a hard time getting elected. They had a mandate from the people and instead of fighting for the people they tucked tail and gave up. Pathetic.

shakran, almost always...I am in agreement with your opinions, and with those of Olbermann. I am having trouble doing that....on this issue. This is not over. Let us not lose sight of who is really to blame for our circumstances in Iraq, who has voted "the right way", who sincerely "supports the troops", who is acting like a "statesman"....who isn't, and most of all....who is acting with sincerity, and who is a hypocrite...

Please read this and consider whether you are "lumping" Pelosi and Obey, and the 11 sitting democratic senators who voted against the "authorization for the president to decide if it was NECESSARY to use force in Iraq" resolution in October, 2002, "in" with the likes of Boehner and Bush, via the sentiments in the opinion that you posted....or not....

Consider whether continuing our support for the political judgments and maneuvering of "Pelosi and Obey, and the 11 sitting democratic senators", and the 140 other house democrats who voted against the bill, and the other 18 democratic senators who were part of the 29 who voted to begin withdrawing from Iraq, ASAP....is our best option (only option ?) for achieving any possibility of beginning US withdrawal from Iraq, before republicans "jump ship" for reasons of political expediency, as they assess their own prospects for reelection in Nov., 2008, if they continue to back the "Decider's" "cornered rat", lunacy.

This was one vote. I'm not ready to dismiss the "29" or the "18" senators who voted both for withdrawal, and then to back this disappointing funding bill. Obey, in the house, comes from a conservative district. He voted against the resolution in October 2002, and against the funding bill, last week....but he helped to draft that POS bill that he voted against.

Durbin and Levin in the senate voted the same way as Obey in 2002, and last week, voted the opposite way. This is not over. These guys are the closest thing to "statesmen" that we've got. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, imo....are not fit, in comparison, to hold the titles of "representative" and "senator".

I am extermely disappointed that Durbin and Levin described the decision of other legislators to vote against the bill as a "failure to support the troops in the field", but I am also convinced that Hillary and "Barry" voted what was best for encouraging the incoming stream of campaign contributions that they obviously covet and require.

I don't think that it is fair or useful to "lump" Durbin, Levin, and Obey, "in" with Boehner and Mitch McConnell, and I think that is what you and Olbermann, end up doing....to an extent, at least. As Franklin said:

Quote:

Yes, let us hang together, for if we don't we shall hang separately....

I don't like what happened, shakrin, anymore than you do. Let's "hang with" Pelosi, Obey, Durbin, and Levin. They're all we've got, they've all demonstrated that they've had and exercised good judgment, and I am not ready to believe that they are all hypocrites. If the choice is to back them as this tug of war continues, or lump them in with Boehner, McConnell and Bush, I hope that you and Olbermann have "another think coming"....

Quote:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...rld&id=5337800

5/25/07) - After a nearly four-month standoff between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the White House, the House and Senate passed a war funding bill Thursday evening that does not contain timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted against the bill, even those Democratic leaders who introduced the legislation to be voted upon -- a tacit acknowledgement that, at least in this round of wrangling, President George W. Bush won.

In the Senate, the bill passed overwhelmingly, 80-14, though three of four Democrats running for president -- Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. -- were in the minority voting against funds for the wars.

"This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one," Obama said in a statement. "And I am demanding a new one."

Clinton, in a statement, said she voted against the legislation "because it fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq."

She said she wished President Bush "had followed the will of the people and signed the original bill we sent which both funded the troops and set a new course of phased redeployment."

But the no vote was not the mainstream Democratic view. Indeed, of the 16 sitting senators who voted against going to war to begin with, 11 voted to provide funds for U.S. troops Thursday evening.

"Though I loathe this decision to fund the war, I will not take out my feelings against the troops in the field," said Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who voted against authorizing use of force in Iraq in October 2002. "Our soldiers should never be bargaining chips in this debate."

Durbin was joined by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chair of the Armed Services Committee, who also voted against going to war nearly five years ago.

"I cannot vote to stop funding our troops who are in harm's way," Levin said. "It is not the proper way that we can bring this was to an end. It is not the proper way that we can put pressure on Iraqi leaders."

Clinton and Obama felt differently, though the decision was apparently not easy. Neither would discuss the vote before it was cast. Both were among the last dozen or so to vote; Obama slipped in quietly onto the Senate floor at close to 8:45 p.m., said hi to some colleagues, approached the desk, quietly said "No," and left.

Only seconds later, Clinton did the same.

In addition to providing $95.5 billion in funds for troops in Iraq and Afganistan, the bill contains provisions largely based on language written by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., which sets 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. If the Iraqi government does not meet those benchmarks, President Bush can choose to penalize the government by withholding aid.

"I think this is significant and sends a very strong message to the Iraqi leaders that the status quo is not acceptable," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. The bill also provides some other emergency agricultural funds and contains a federal minimum wage increase previously passed by both the House and Senate. Despite their victory, there was little, if any, public crowing by Republican leaders.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that since President Bush first officially requested supplemental funds for U.S. troops in February, "Congress has voted more than 30 times on Iraqi-related measures without approving a single dime. One hundred eight days and more than 30 votes later, ... we're relieved the Democratic leadership has decided to strip a reckless and nonsensical surrender date from the bill."

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, broke down in tears just before his side won by a vote of 280-142, with every Republican except for two voting for passage.

"I didn't come here to be a congressman," Boehner said, choking back tears. "I came here to do something."

Pausing to collect himself, largely in vain, Boeher continued, "I think at the top of our list is providing for the safety and security of the American people."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on the other hand, spoke with measured control, describing the bill as "something that does not have adequate guidelines and timetables, something that does not have adequate consequences, and something that does not have my support."

Pelosi was not joined in opposing the bill by much of the House Democratic leadership. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, voted in favor of final passage, along with 82 other Democrats.

Pelosi was in the majority in her party, however, joined by 139 other House Democrats in opposing the bill, including the legislator who helped draft and introduced the legislation, House Approprations Committee chair David Obey, D-Wisc.

"I hate this agreement," Obey said. "I'm going to vote against the major portion of this agreement even though I negotiated it, because I think that the White House is in a cloud somewhere in terms of understanding the realities in Iraq." Obey, who has had vitriol-filled confrontations with anti-war activists, said Democrats "are not giving up," simply facing legislative realities -- that Democrats in the Senate lack the 60 votes necessary to proceed with a debate on a bill containing timetables for U.S. troop withdrawal, and that war opponents in both the House and Senate lack the two-thirds vote necessary to override a presidential veto.

"That may not be a pleasant fact," Obey said, "but it is a reality. Opponents of the war need to face this fact just as the president and his allies need to face the fact that they are following a dead-end policy, which we will continue to make every possible effort to change."

That was not good enough for Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

"It boggles my mind that Congress wants to give him another blank check to buy more shovels," she said.

Democrats cautioned that just because the battle over this particular bill had ended, that did not mean they were letting up. Two defense spending bills are coming down the pike and Democrats say they will try to force provisions to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq on those bills as well.

"Those of us who oppose this war will be back again and again and again and again and again until this war has ended," promised Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

....consider that these polled sentiments to a degree, contradict each other, and the vote on the latest Iraq war supplemental funding bill, from the democrat's side, at least, reflects the inconsistency in the opinion of withdrawal, vs. continued funding, of the American public.

Quote:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?"

5/18-23/07
Should 63% Should Not 34% Unsure 3%

"Which of these comes closest to your opinion? Congress should block all funding for the war in Iraq no matter what. Congress should allow funding, but only on the condition that the U.S. sets benchmarks for progress and the Iraqi government are meeting those goals. OR, Congress should allow all funding for the war without any benchmark conditions."

5/18-23/07
Block All 13% Fund With Benchmarks 69% Allow All 15% Unsure 3%

Consider that all but 2 republicans in the house voted for the bill. Which representatives from which party, are at least struggling to vote in a way that represents the muddled "will" of the people, and which representatives are voting irregardless of the public wishes concerning president Bush's Iraq clusterrfuck?

shakran · 05-28-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

To place the blame on Congressional Democrats seems somewhat misdirected in my opinion, as they are fighting with hands tied behind backs.

They were elected to fight, not roll over. The troops have enough money for several more months without getting additional funding. That's time the democrats could be kicking up one hell of a fuss, but instead they're terrified that Bush & Co. might badmouth them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Host

This is not over. Let us not lose sight of who is really to blame for our circumstances in Iraq

Don't get me wrong Host - the dems are NOT to blame for starting the war or for bungling it. That's all on Bush and his cronies. But they ARE to blame for not fighting this down to the last possible chance. Rolling over, especially this early, teaches Bush a very important lesson - - if he sits there and refuses to budge eventually the democrats will cave and give him anything he wants. That's not the lesson these people were elected to teach.

I don't think that saying the democrats screwed up is lumping them in with Bush. Bush screwed up worse, definitely, and he screwed up first. But just as I have complained so loudly about the republicans saying "But Clinton!!" that this forum has named a law after me about it, I also object to the other side saying "but Bush!!!" It doesn't matter to me that Bush has been doing the wrong thing since day 1 as far as my evaluation of the democrats goes. If they screw up, they screw up, and claiming that someone else screwed up too and therefore it's probably OK for them to screw up, is disingenuous.

Quote:

They're all we've got, they've all demonstrated that they've had and exercised good judgment, and I am not ready to believe that they are all hypocrites.

I joined this board in 2003, when Bush was in the middle of being the nation's number one jackass. Because he's all that there has been to fight against many on here have gotten the impression that I'm a staunch democrat. I am not. Hypocrites might not be the word I'd chose to describe these particular democrats. Chickenshit might be a little closer. Utter cowards is pretty much right on the money. They were elected with a mandate from the people. End the war. They are supposed to do what the people want them to do. It's that simple. Rolling over and letting Bush once again have his way is in direct opposition to what the people want.

The correct move would be to refuse to pass a funding bill, period, that doesn't have a deadline in it. Bush can veto it all he wants, and they can keep sending it back to him. The lack of funding for the troops would be on Bush's shoulders, not Congress. If Bush truly cares about the troops as he (falsely) claims to, then he will accept the legislation when it comes down to the wire. If he doesn't, then that right there would bring more of congress in line with the legislation - perhaps enough to overturn the veto.

What's the point of getting rid of a rubber stamp congress if the new congress still gives Bush anything he wants?

aceventura3 · 05-29-2007, 06:22 AM

All the Democrats or anyone in Congress has to do is vote and act on what they think is the right thing to do. It is no more or less complicated than that.

When people say one thing and do another, I have a problem with that. Everyone should have a problem with that.

05-24-2007, 08:23 AM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace: you're being obtuse again. get a grip. more generally: if the war in iraq is not a legitimation crisis for the system itself, then what could possibly be one? if there is no possibility of legitimation crisis, no possiblity of reconsideration of what we do and how we do it at the fundamental level, then the simple fact of the matter is that such political "freedoms" as we have mean nothing because, when it gets down to it, we have NO POWER to change ANYTHING when a situation arises like this--one that demonstrates the incompetence of the actors that make up that system, their lack of judgement, their incapacity to think in ways that do not take their own institutional position to be an a priori. if the war in iraq is not a legitimation crisis for this political order, then i submit that there is no possible legitimation crisis for this order because the nature of this order is to not acknowledge any fundamental challenges to it, not even those that result from ineptness within the order itself. so we live in a type of authoritarian bureaucratic system the principle quirk of which is that the internal discourse within that system is geared around the rhetoric of freedom and popular sovereignty. but the fact is that this discourse is nothing but words. it means nothing. it is a management tool. people only have power if there exists the possibility that they can collectively act to change the existing system. our collective actions are limited to faction rotation within that system. we have no access to the structure of that system. we can do nothing about it. how many peope have died in iraq as a result of this fuck up? hwo many more will die as this incoherent system operates to protect itself as such, dicking around, offering idiotic pseudo-solutions to a crisis of its own making? is it the fact that iraq is far away and inhabited by folk we have been conditioned to not like that prevents it from being a fundamental crisis for THIS political system, the one that is wholly and solely responsible for teh disaster that has been unfolding there? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-24-2007, 09:16 AM	#44 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so what i take it you are saying, powerclown, is that everything considered, your political preferences float toward the clearest memes. at least you're up front about it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-24-2007, 09:18 AM	#45 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I love Olberman. I agree with him that the Dems should fight harder and should keep sending back the exact same bill. This new bill hasn't passed yet and hopefully with fail to get through the house. Last edited by Rekna; 05-24-2007 at 09:22 AM..

05-24-2007, 09:48 AM	#47 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	So that's what they're going to go back to the people with? "Hey, at least we gave it a shot, that counts for something, right?" __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

05-24-2007, 06:23 PM	#51 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think I am beginning to understand Bush's concept of the will of the people, as well as his conviction. When a majority of the Congress and the American people express their opinion that it is time to replace his failed strategy with something new that includes a plan for phased redeployment, the Bush response is "we must stay to fight al Queda there so they dont have to fight them here (he only referred to al Queda 19 times in his 60 minute press conference) That is until, the Iraqi paliament says otherwise: Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no." THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave. So its damn the American public and Congress, but he will only answer to the will of the Iraqi government. Oh well, there goes his conviction about staying to fight those al Queda wannabees if the radical Muqtada al-Sadr, who may very well control a majority block in the Iraq parliament, says get out. (Sadarist Push US Withdrawal Timetable) I think the bird dumping on Bush during the press conference is highly symbolic or at the very least, amusing and well deserved for a man who has such crappy conviction for the democratic process. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3209176 __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-25-2007 at 05:19 AM..

05-24-2007, 09:00 AM	#43 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Ace, I feel your exasperation. At the very least, the Repubs have a clear, unmistakable message to the American people: continue funding the troops, continue fighting, continue to try to put Iraq back together again, no withdrawal. The Repubs - right or wrong - have a plan and are acting upon it. The Dems are obviously still in a state of confusion over Iraq...after 4+ years, there is still no coherent, unanimous Democratic position about what to do about Iraq. They can't decide whether to stay or go. We all know what Bush wants, but do we know what the Dems want? What makes their incoherence even more strange is that the American people, in November 2006, told them in no uncertain terms that they want the Dems in charge of policy decisions in Iraq from now on. They've been given carte blanche by the American people to reverse the mistakes Bush has made, but for some reason they can't get their act together. Here's Olby's take on the Dems failure to put through recent house supplementals calling for a timeline for troop withdrawal: <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H00zSRc7LJw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H00zSRc7LJw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

05-24-2007, 09:46 AM	#46 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Face it folks....Bush stilll has the upper hand, and will continue to have it until the end of 2008. The congress is limited due to its lack of votes, and MUST allow presidential authority to play out, regadless of the outcome. Welcome to U.S Politics in action.......we can only hope for a best case scenario.

05-24-2007, 09:54 AM	#48 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	The republicans are painting themselves in a corner come the 2008 elections. If they are still in Iraq come that election they are likely to loose seats in both the senate and the house and the oval office also. If the dems manage to get 60 seats in the senate they will be able to ram as much legislation through as they want and the republicans will not be able to do a thing to stop it. You will see massive changes to everything.

05-27-2007, 07:28 PM	#55 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Olbermann nailed it. The democrats HAVE betrayed the public. They've caved, and they've shown why they have such a hard time getting elected. They had a mandate from the people and instead of fighting for the people they tucked tail and gave up. Pathetic.

05-29-2007, 06:22 AM	#59 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	All the Democrats or anyone in Congress has to do is vote and act on what they think is the right thing to do. It is no more or less complicated than that. When people say one thing and do another, I have a problem with that. Everyone should have a problem with that. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."