Dems betray public, give into Bush
 

Link

Essentially, the Dems in Congress have once again given in to the Friedman Unit worldview of the Iraq War. The GOP has been stringing out the "deadline" for when you will "need to see results" in Iraq for years. Literally.

The new official Republican deadline is this September. So, of course, you're not allowed to say anything about Iraq until "we have time to see if the surge is working." And, of course, it's Congress's "duty" to fund the war up until September so "our troops have a chance to succeed." The Iraq War is a fucking failure. Why are you being told you need to "wait and see," again and again, before you can say what it is and begin ending it?

Yeah, when I heard there was a compromise in the works, it sounded like a bad idea on several levels. Obviously, it's not conducive to ending the "Q-word". And once again, it's congress playing the administration's game.

What they need to do is resubmit fundamentally the same Iraq extension bill, with fundamentally the same deadlines, but only give the funding a 60 or 90-day extension. That way it has to go back to Bush's desk for a veto every couple months, ensuring that the public remembers exactly who's forcing our troops to stay in a deadly and unwinnable situation.

I've bolded what you should really be concerned with, for your convenience.

The above was in the article above. This really strikes me as odd. Who gives "authorization" for our elected official to tell us what the hell they are doing? Why wouldn't they want to get a read on how people in the nation feel about the bill they are working on? This whole thing with the funding seems like it was and still is political grandstanding. At a time of war Congress should be ashamed.

Its hard for me to understand how it is political grandstanding or shameful for the Democrats in Congress to pursue a course of action that the American people voted them in office to do...ie, opposing Bush's failed policies in Iraq and pursuing a policy that would set a date to begin to bring the troops home in a manner that was in our best interest and least harmful to the future prospects for Iraq.

I will go slow to keep focused, assuming that you really don't get it.

Why does a member of Congress need authority to talk about the bill?

Its interesting that Sec of Defense Gates described the Congressional debate about funding and timelines to be helpful, not shameful.:
There is no need to be condescending with the "i dont get it" comment.

I get it...the Dems were talking about possible changes in the final bill that were still under consideration.....not about the bill as it currently stands. You dont seem to see the difference. It is perfectly reasonable for members of a caucus in Congress to have private discussions on possible amendments to determine possible support prior to proposing such amendments. Does that make sense?

Good for him.

I see you choose not to answer my question. I understand.

Edit: I see you did answer the question.

Why would member of Congress want to be anonomous when discussing the bill and possible changes to the bill?

If you dont see the value of private conversations among members of Congress regarding potential amendments to a bill then I just have to agree with Roachboys assessment of the "fantasies that enable your politics" (link)

Perhaps you can answer my question....why is it political grandstanding for Democrats to do what the American people voted them in office to do?

It is not. When members of Congress vote based on their beliefs or based on what they promised their constituents
, I think that is honorable. How do Democrats feel about funding and brining our troops home? I have asked this question before in different forms, never got an answer, I don't expect one at this point.

When Congress was considering the first bill, Bush stated what and why he would veto a bill. Congress sent a bill that would be veto'd anyway. Several weeks later, there is a leak in the media about a new bill. The information is leaked by unnamed sources who are not authorized to give any details. This is the most important issue of the day, and it is liekely to pass at the eleventh hour, possibly over a long holiday weekend to minimize news coverage. There is strategy at play here, isn't it? But, Bush will get what he wants, perhaps in exchange for a few political favors.

Here an interesting point of view from the editorial page of IBD.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...64727642819830

What truly leaves me bemused and befuddled is how you can say you dont understand or never got an answer how the Democrats feel about funding and bringing the troops home. ...when it was laid out clearly in the Iraq Accountability Act (which i posted at least twice in response to your question), with the actions they included regarding redeployment,diplomatic strategies, etc.:

Directs the President to commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number essential for: (1) protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure; (2) training and equipping Iraqi forces; and (3) conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

Requires redeployment implementation as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community to collectively bring stability to Iraq.

Requires reports from the President to Congress every 90 days on progress made in implementing such redeployment.

All 51 Dem senators voted for it and 219 Dem House members (10 opposed).

Why is that so hard to understand?

I got as far into the IBD editorial as "they left the president in firm possession of the moral high ground." ....then i couldnt take it seriously.

I guess it is too vaugue.

What is a limited number?
Diplomatic strategy?
Economic strategy?
Engaging Iraqs neighbors?

I am sure Bush already thinks he is addressing those issues with his current plan. And, if that is what they want, why compromise now?

You guess its too vague? as opposed to Bush's current strategy...which you are SURE Bush thinks he is addressing (reading Bush's mind again?.....funny how you are SURE about what Bush is thinking, but question the motives and thinking of Dems).

THey compromised out of necessity because they did not have a veto proof majority? Why is that so hard to understand.

In the end, the Dems caved. I was dissapointed to see this, but at same time, see no merit in going back and forth with a bill..a veto..another bill..another veto.....that accomplished nothing.

IMO, the hyprocrisy and the moral low ground can be found among the many Repubs who have publicly and privately said the current policy is failing, but continue to support the Pres for political reasons..rather then whats best for the troops or the country.

At the very least, the process put many Repubs on the record saying they expect to see serious progress by September if they are to continue to support the failed Bush strategy.

Sometimes doing nothing is more honorable and more beneficial than "just doing SOMETHING." Ever hear of a strike? Refusing to work is a very effective way of making someone reconsider their position. If Congress REFUSED to give in without a deadline and actually meant it, Bush would be forced to reconsider.

Instead, appropriately, Democrats cut-and-ran from their own supposed principles. :rolleyes:

Sorry Seretogis...call if "cut and run" if you wish...many Dem members just didnt see the benefit of playing russian roulette with the troops in the middle and IMO,that is a principled stand.
Obviously, you dont understand the numbers....Bush would not be forced to reconsider as long as the Dems did not have a veto=proof majority (meaning Repub support which did not exist)

I can wait until the next go round in late summer when Congress takes up the 08 Defense Approp, bill and we shall see if the Repubs who have spoken against the Bush plan..but wanted 4 more months....will vote their principles or politics...if there is little or no meaningful progress in Iraq?

Bush says what he thinks and does what he says. he has been saying stay the course since prior to his second term. Guess what - he is staying the course.

The plan is vague. I know if I were Bush, I would say I am alreading addressing the issues in the bill veto'd. He has not needed to say it, but if the bill had any real support his "machine" would have picked it apart, starting with how vague it is. The bill was pure theater.

Here we go again. People with convictions, don't compromise those convictions.

Because I have a few convictions that I would not compromise. I some cases I would choose death over compromise. So when people say they feel strongly about an issue and then turn-around and compromise, I truly don't get it, other than to assume what they said was b.s. to begin with.

I lump them all together when I referred to Congress.

Is it as principled of a stand as Bush playing russian roulette with the troops in the middle by staying in Iraq? Someone has to take a stand for what is right (non-aggression), and, yes, they may even be called dirty names and blamed for unrelated events by doing so. If the Democrats truly wanted to get us out of Iraq they would do so, not cave to Bush. If the Democrats truly wanted to get us out of Iraq, it would be more important to them than being re-elected.

Clearly, it isn't. The compromise is all about political job-security, nothing more.

ace...I understand

You think its honorable that Bush is staying the course" even though it has not achieved any measurable success......our troops continue to die in greater numbers since the surge began, sectarian violence continues unabated, millions of Iraqis have been displaced from their homes, reconstruction is rife with corruption, the government is dysfunctional and has not enacted any meaningful legislation to address the problems (debaathification), etc...and there are absolutely no signs that the surge will bring about any poistive results.

I dont see that as conviction...I see as someone who is too stubborn to admit when he is wrong and morally indefensible.

I say what I think. I know you have read my current view on removing our troops from Iraq.

I have also stated that the only way to get Bush to change his position on Iraq is to force him to. This is not brain surgery. Congress knows what needs to be done, why won't they do it?

The Democrats in Congress cannot do it alone.They dont have the numbers. How hard is that to understand?

That is a question that needs to be asked of the Republican members of Congress...particularly those who have publicly and privately said the Bush plan is failing but wont vote against it or propose an alternative of their own.

So, you can see the hypocrisy when it applies to Republicans.

I say "Congress" is playing political games with this issue and grandstanding, you pretend my view is outlandish, then you conceed the point against Republicans. Well, Democrats are trying to cover their behinds and/or make political hay out of this issue also.

The Demcrats did what the public asked them to do....they sent the President a plan for phased redeployment...and it failed.

They can do it again and again and it will continue to fail without Republican support. Its not fuzzy math.

Ace, there's NO SUCH THING as "congress", in the sense you're using. Like, "Why doesn't congress...?", as if it's one unified thing.

Congress is split down party lines on this issue. You're trying to turn it into an attack on Democrats, because this mythical atomic construct you call "congress" is "controlled" by Democrats. It's the REPUBLICANS in congress who, with their sizeable minority, are preventing "congress" from taking a strong line against the administration's policy. Including Republicans whose convictions that we should get out of Iraq are getting shoved aside for party-loyalty purposes.

I had thought this couldn't get said any plainer and simpler the third time dc_dux said it to you. What part of this aren't you understanding?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congres..._United_States

If you mis-understood what I meant by "Congress" perhaps the info above will help clarify.

:rolleyes:

Not true. They could do it alone, if they had a unified stance on troop withdrawal. If enough Dems could agree to put a timeline for withdrawal in the legislation, they would have enough votes to override Bush's veto. That they don't, says to me that they don't actually want to leave Iraq...which is consistent with, for example, the unabated construction of the World's Largest American Embassy (in the Green zone) as well as hundreds of millions in ongoing funding for military bases throughout Iraq.

The Dems are between a rock and a hard place: They have the certainty of a Bush veto if they ever demand a specific date for withdrawal, and they have an increasingly vocal constituency demanding the US immediately get out of Iraq. I also think the Dems have a third problem: they haven't yet told their constituency, for obvious reasons, that the US in fact has no plans to leave Iraq for a long, long time. This dirty little secret could have dire consequences for a Democratically controlled, anti-war Congress.

Powerclown...it is true...the Dems do not have the numbers...it takes 2/3 to override a veto....288 votes in the House; there are 238 Democrats.....and 67 in the Senate; there are 51 Democrats.

How do you figure the Democrats can do it alone?

They don't have to override the veto, all they need do is continue to pass and send the same bill to Bush over and over and over and over again. Failure to do so shows that they really don't care that much about getting out of Iraq. Refer to my previous posts.

it seems to me that the democrats are being framed in a bizarre way now--as somehow "anti-war"--as favoring immediate withdrawal--which i havent actually seen and i dont think is accurate. what they seem to be angling for is something like a sane approach to this bush-made, republican-made debacle. you know, a plan. something that was optional before, apparently. something that manly Resoluteness was supposed to fill in for.

it also seems to me that this stalemate is not the only thing happening, that the bush people are madly scrambling--with co-operation from all sides, it appears, behind the scenes to figure out something that might approach sanity. i even saw something earlier today somewhere (normally i would look for it, but at the moment, i have other things to tend to so havent the time) that the bush people are looking to approach the united nations in an effort to internationalize the conflict. which is saner than either of the nitwit meme-level approaches that are being floated at the level of television identity politics, which it seems that folk are most willing to fall for, simply because it does what it is supposed to do: distract you from the debacle itself. and it IS a fucking debacle.

so i dunno, folks: i dont think this is the central or interesting level at which to look at what may happen in iraq, this pissing match over funding and what, if anything, it'll get tied to, and these one-dimensional correlates that seem to follow from it.

off to make sure that my cooking project doesnt go to hell.
i have a plan, you see.
of course, cooking is not a war. but cooking needs a plan. so does a fucking war. jeez.

You are correct DC, I misspoke. Looking over the bill online, I see they needed some republican votes in there as well. What I don't understand is, why did the Dems send this to the President, knowing beforehand that 1) Bush would veto, 2) they wouldn't have the votes to override the veto?

edit: seretogis provides an answer to that question.

sorry, 'anti-war democrats' in regard to those in favor of setting a timetable for withdrawal:

Defections now likely on Iraq bill
By Mike Soraghan
May 23, 2007

Liberal Democrats who reluctantly have backed House leaders on the Iraq spending bill may defect due to the leadership’s decision to eliminate any timeline for withdrawal from the legislation.

That could force the leadership to rely on Republican votes to pass the war-spending bill, which is expected to come to the floor as early as Thursday.

“The anti-war Democrats have reached their tipping point,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a leader of the Out of Iraq caucus. “It’s going to take Republican votes to pass it.”

Woolsey has voted consistently against Iraq supplemental spending bills, saying they don’t do enough to get the U.S. out of Iraq.

Her observation is backed by comments by members like Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.). He was a surprise vote in favor of the original supplemental this year, but he said yesterday he cannot back the bill again without a timeline.

Grijalva said: “I’ve supported it all the way to this point. I understand the work that went into it. But if the goal is accountability, I don’t think this gets us closer to that goal.”

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said he expects enough Democrats to switch that leadership vote-counters will lose the margin of victory they have enjoyed so far.

“I’m on the edge,” he said. “I’m not liking this. A lot of people have bought into the notion that you have to fund the troops. Funding the troops means more troops are going to die.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) indicated that just because he has voted for it before does not mean he will vote for it without a timeline.

“Probably not,” Nadler said. “If it doesn’t have some sort of timeline, it’s going to be tough for me to vote for it.”

Freshman Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), who ran against the war and enthusiastically supported the first supplemental and its call for withdrawal, is also wavering. Asked whether he could support the new plan, he shook his head and said, “I don’t know.”

If Democrats are looking for Republican votes, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) thinks they can find them. He says he would be surprised if the proposal cannot garner 10 to 15 GOP votes.

“If the bill is without timelines, there would be a few Republicans who have bases and military retirees in their districts who feel the need to support the troops,” Jones said.

[At a caucus meeting at press time, House Democratic leaders outlined their plan to get around liberal defections. The supplemental spending bill will be brought to the House floor as two amendments to the Senate bill. The first will be President Bush’s original Iraq supplemental request. It is expected to pass with the votes of many Republicans and conservative Democrats. The second, a domestic spending bill to include money for children’s health insurance, Gulf Coast hurricane relief, minimum wage and other items. They will be combined procedurally without a vote and sent to the Senate.

“It’s a concession to reality,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.).]

The timeline for withdrawal of troops fell to the cutting-room floor as leaders sought to fashion a bill that President Bush could sign and that could be passed by the Memorial Day break. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the House will not leave for that recess until a bill is sent to the president.

Democratic Caucus briefings on the bill were delayed twice this week. A Monday night caucus meeting was canceled, and the regular Tuesday meeting ended before Iraq came up, after a long discussion on trade.

The legislation is expected to include minimum-wage provisions and money for Gulf Coast hurricane relief and children’s health insurance, but it will exclude agricultural relief spending.

“There will be an awful lot of things in the supplemental that members will consider very important,” Hoyer said.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted that the final war-funding measure would incorporate the benchmarks-based provision authored by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and cosponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

Supporters of the plan to remove timelines say it takes the question of whether Democrats will “fund the troops” off the table and opens the door to an uninhibited debate on Iraq policy in upcoming bills like the regular defense appropriations bill. Moran, for example, said he intends to vote for the supplemental “under the assumption that there will be stronger language” in future bills.

“This bill will get us to funding the troops,” said Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.). “We’re going to come to an accommodation on funding the troops and keep the process going. Eventually, there will be a date certain.”
Lawmakers say they have to work with President Bush on this bill to keep moving towards ending the war, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said.

“In the end, the president has the last say,” Ruppersberger said. “The most important thing is the endgame — getting our troops out.”

They did it because they had a mandate from the American people as a result of the 06 election to do it. And at the very least, the vote put every member of the House and Senate on the record.

However, even if Congress were to submit a veto-proof bill, Bush, through his mouthpiece, Tony Snow, has indicated he would use a Civil War era law, the Feed and Forage Act of 1864 to continue to fund his surge.

The Food and Forage Law has been used twice by Rumsfeld/Bush:
Until the publilc outcry against continuing the failed Bush pollicy becomes even greater than the 60% + current level to the point that it becomes politically unpaletable even to a lame duck and the Republican members of Congress, Bush will get his way...and the Republicans in 08 will ultimately suffer the consequences.

my sense is kinda what dc said above. but it only a thin dimension of what has to be going on regarding iraq.
where i disagree is that it will be the republicans who will really pay for this in 08: the people of iraq are the ones REALLY paying...

Oh for fuck's sake. Do you have any interest at all in discussion? Go look up "asinine", because that was the single most asinine response I've ever seen on TFP and that's saying something.

The only rhetorical strategy you have is to ignore everything everyone else is saying. You therefore lose this argument.

According to poll results the approval ratings of Congress is as low as the approval ratings for Bush. I, along with about 60 to 65% of those surveyed do not approve of the way Congress is conducting our nation's business including the Iraq war - the biggest issue facing the country. You say I ignore what everyone is saying. Am I ignoring what people are saying or are you?

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

Congress exists the way baseball fans exist. You can (and people do) look at them as a group that has defined views and hard edges, but you'd be missing out on the reality that they don't all think alike. While there may be consensus among fans about the All Star game, that consensus arises from many viewpoints, some of them conflicting.

I think you have understood this all along.

in the present pseudo-democracy, such situations are possible.
ideally, though--and this if the notion of accountability had any actual content (which it doesnt)--i would think that this would be a good time for everyone who was involved with the fabrication of the case for the iraq debacle, the pursuit of that debacle, and who voted for that debacle to accept responsibility for it and resign. we should have new elections. that is the only meaningful way in which the magnitude of this fuck up could possibly be acknowledged. it would indicate that elected officials understood that if they are responsible for the case for war or if they approved of it, they self-evidently demonstrated that they are not competent to hold office.
their judgments cannot be relied upon.
it is time to push reset.

holding extraordinary elections is a logistical issue, nothing more.

the present state of affairs grinds away at such legitimacy as this system still has, particularly internationally--but domestically as well.
the ongoing theater of paralysis simply demonstrates that the incompetence of this particular population to make coherent judgments concerning the iraq debacle has not changed.
but there is nothing like that happening.
there is no such thing as responsibility within this system, then.
no such thing as personal accountability.
it is apparently enough that the american people are politically free one day every four years.
and so it is apparently adequate to our collective purposes, what it going on in iraq.
and there is no pressure on the elements of the oligarchy that runs the show to do anything to demonstrate that they place system interests above personal power.
because they dont.

the system is itself a joke. the bush administration is walking talking demonstrations of that fact, as is everyone in office who believed them.
the debacle in iraq is, in fact, of that order of magnitude.
no wonder folk prefer to play along with the exchanges of trivia that passes for debate.
the assumption must be that the illusion of movement is movement, that the illusion of considered debate is considered debate.

but something is very very wrong with this. with all of it.

Where did "they all think alike" come from. I never said that. In-fact I have questioned why they don't sit down and come together a develop an alternative plan to the Bush plan that they can agree on, or at least get passed. Given the rhetoric that the Bush plan has failed, I think Congress has an obilgation to put forth an alternative plan or shut-up.

So i am still at a loss for what Rat's point is. If his point is that they don't all think alike, o.k., I agree.

ace congressional approval ratings don't mean much. Because it doesn't state who they are unhappy with. In order to make the assertions that you are making they need to have questions like: Do you feel congress should do more to try and get us out of Iraq? And Do you feel congress has gone to far to try and get us out of Iraq? Otherwise you have X% unhappy with congress because they haven't done enough and Y% unhappy with congress because they have done to much and then you are adding them together saying (X+Y)% of the people are unhappy with congress trying to get us out of Iraq. Sorry that is fuzzy conclusions.

I say Congress' lack of conviction and political grandstanding on this issue is shameful.
Then I am told Congress is doing what they were elected to do and has or had a plan.
Then I say that plan was too vague.
Then I am told about Bush's plan, rather than addressing the vague Congressional plan.
Then I outline how the Bush machine could respond to the Congressional plan if the Congressional plan got any traction.
Then I am told that Democrats in Congress can't do it alone, when I never suggested that.
Then, I am told that Congress doesn't exist, and that this had been clearly explained to me.
Then I gave links showing what I meant by Congress.
Then I am told I am told to look up asinine because it may apply to me, and that I don't listen to people.
Then I make reference to what people surveyed think about the job Congress is doing and that I did not get the point of Congress not existing.
Then I am told Congress exists the way baseball fans exist and they don't all think alike, and I understood that all along.
I say I never suggested they all think alike.
Now, you tell me that Congressional approval ratings don't mean much because of the questions and fuzzy conclusions drawn from the surveys.

I officially throw up the white flag, I give.

Congress is acting honorable. Congress has a workable alternative plan to the Bush's plan. Congress is doing what the people want, eventhough the Democrats can't do it alone. Congress doesn't really exist the way I think they do, and they certainly don't all think alike. And, don't use polls to make a determination if Congress is actually doing what the people want or if your views are inline with those of the general public.

I think I got it.

Thanks

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

You forgot to include the part where you said Congress didn't have a plan and then dc_dux gave both a link and a summary to the plan.

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.

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?

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>

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 <b>beginning</b> 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:
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"....
....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.
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?

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.

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.


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?

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.