10-02-2007, 07:05 PM | #1 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
When can we hold the Dems accountable?
Quote:
Democratic Congress: Yes, no shit you need 60. We all took gov in high school. If you don't have 60, does that mean you bend over and take it? |
|
10-02-2007, 07:25 PM | #2 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
Quote:
The Dem's are in a difficult position. If they stop funding the war they guarantee their destruction in '08. If they try to pass legislation to pull the troops they will fail on the House or Senate floor. If they try to attach a troop pullout to a funding bill they will be attacked, and rightfully so, for sleezy tactics (and will get vetoed... again). If they don't do anything they have no answers for '08 when people ask what they'll do differentlyfrom the Republicans. If they Stay pro-war they lose their own base and will find a suddenly strong 3rd party.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas |
|
10-02-2007, 07:33 PM | #3 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
That's the thing, though. Only pundits think that they will look weak on terror if they don't support the war or they'll look "anti-troops" if they yank funding. The reality is that more armor isn't going to stop our troops from being shot at. Bringing them home will. Any Dem with half a brain knows this, but very few of them have the testicular fortitude to say it out loud.
|
10-02-2007, 08:32 PM | #4 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
The Democrats are in a difficult position. Its not a matter of both looking weak to their anti-war supporters and being identified as "anti_troops" or "weak on terror" by the other side.
Cutting off funding is bad policy....it would put the 140,00+ troops currently in Iraq at risk and those troops should not become political fodder any more than they are. The Democrat approach will be again to put conditions on the funding in the appropriation bill and the supplemental bill (the bill above was just the authorization bill), both of which they plan to withhold until after the first of the year (2008) in order to continue to pressure more moderate Republicansto support some conditions on a time frame tied to political progress by the Iraqi. ...I know, same old story, but I still havent heard a better alternative than can override a veto by Bush.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
10-02-2007, 08:58 PM | #5 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
We get the war well into the next president the way things are going. Why? Because people who vote for republicans are idiots (not to generalize), and people that don't aren't united. I'm not a Democrat, but I'm backing Kucinich... a Democrat! Why? Because he has the balls and the hot wife to get things done. If people stopped marginalizing him for 5 seconds, he could bring about serious positive change including but not limited to possibly ending the war. And he's not alone. There are good Democrat senators out there. The problem is that many of the Dem senators are cowards, and the party is a mess. What ended the Vietnam War? The war that was supposed to be never ending? Protests, Pentagon Papers, soldiers breaking down, and National Guardsmen firing on and killing students. We've already got all that. We've got massive national and international protests, we've got Downing Street Memos, we've got soldiers coming back seriously fucked up... do we really need to murder protesters in cold blood to finish this damn thing? /frustrated |
|
10-02-2007, 09:22 PM | #6 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
The best way to "finish the damn thing" is to get a veto-proof bill that will begin the process of ending our occupation and start bringing the troops home....or wait until Jan 09 and hope for an Obama (or Kucinich) presidency.
But I share your frustration.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
10-02-2007, 09:35 PM | #7 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
So how do we get something that's veto proof when the people refuse to hold Bush to task in any real way? I mean all we have are poles and pundits, seemingly. Besides impeachmnet, which I'd totally support so long as it was Bush and Cheney at the same time... but that won't happen because while it'd shoot through the House (assuming they can gather their fortitude and come together), but would fail in the Senate. 2/3 majority won't happen because the GOP is corrupt. Here's the thing, though: 92-3. Can't at least they show solidarity?I mean really, is it that they really want to put armor on the troops? Because we've spent $500b and they're still driving useless vehicles and aren't fully armored. As has been said, the troops are safest at home. |
|
10-02-2007, 09:42 PM | #8 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
|
10-02-2007, 10:59 PM | #9 (permalink) | |
Insane
Location: Memphis Area
|
Quote:
I find this to be the most true, in my eyes. Though it would be nice for them to be able to step up and push harder for troop withdrawal, it would almost definitely lead to serious problems for them in the upcoming elections. -Will
__________________
Life is nothing, everything.....and something in between... |
|
10-02-2007, 11:28 PM | #10 (permalink) | |
Tone.
|
Quote:
So yes, the democrats have a mandate from the people that voted for them to end the war. And they're failing miserably, thereby proving that they're no more worthy to hold office than the republicans are. Oh and as to when they'll be held accountable, Olberman BLASTED then HARD the day after they caved in to Bush's budget demands the first time. |
|
10-03-2007, 05:38 AM | #11 (permalink) |
Huggles, sir?
Location: Seattle
|
When it comes to doing what is right, or doing what will keep them in power, Democrats = Republicans. The two parties are one and the same when there is any threat to their power. Fuck the people, fuck civil liberties, fuck the troops, fuck the economy, Senator Billybob from West Virginia needs to be re-elected!
When are we going to unshackle ourselves from a dead-end two-party winner-take-all system, and return to fighting for our rights rather than dominion over foreign countries?
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames |
10-03-2007, 09:13 AM | #13 (permalink) |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
From what I understand, approval of the funds is an action separate from the actual allocation of the funds. Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, announced he would delay action on the White House's war request for next year, saying he refuses "to continue the status quo."
Can someone explain to me what the reality of his position is, or is he just posturing?
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007 |
10-03-2007, 09:32 AM | #14 (permalink) |
Illusionary
|
Until a commitment is made to remove our troops from the line of fire, denying the resources that might save a few lives will be seen as a lack of support. As it is there seems to be a very small move toward withdrawal, but until we decide as a government to leave, it would be a disaster (yes even more so than it is right now) to cut funding from the people we sent into such a war.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha |
10-03-2007, 10:15 AM | #15 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Tec, I've heard that a lot, but I don't know why people don't understand that armor won't make them as safe as bringing them home. I wasn't around for Vietnam, so you more seasoned and fortunate members can maybe explain the events leading up to the end of that war better than I have learned in a few old textbooks, but I think it's relevant.
|
10-03-2007, 10:46 AM | #16 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
When they threaten to cut funding, they're not talking about armor.
They're talking about cutting the food, toilet paper, water, etc from the war. THAT is why if the Dems get what they want they are digging their own grave. They are attempting to starve the troops if Bush doesn't pull them out, and they actually believe the population would support them.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas |
10-03-2007, 10:49 AM | #17 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
We do support that, though.
Quote:
|
|
10-03-2007, 02:45 PM | #18 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
No spending bill can get to the floor of the House for vote unless or until he makes it happen. In regard to Bush's latest war supplemental request of nearly $200 billion, he said yesterday: “As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo."This is not cutting off funding, but rather delaying it until after the first of the year (making it a hot political issue for those Repubs as they start campaigning for reelection over the next few months). There is enough funding in the short-term pipeline so that this wont have any impact on meeting the current needs of the troops. He also put conditions on the war supplemental appropriation: “I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President’s request if that request were made in support of a change in policy that would do three things.Its not very tough or specfic, but it would force Republicans to go on the record to support (or not) a goal to end our occupation by Jan 09. Where he was posturing was in his proposal for a surtax added to personal income tax to pay for the war. The point being you cant keep spending on a war (over $600 billion if/when this latest request from Bush is approved) without paying for it. “We need to stop pretending that this war doesn’t cost anything.The idea of a surtax was political theater, but it did make a point that needed to be made.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
|
10-04-2007, 06:32 AM | #20 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
__________________
"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." |
|
10-04-2007, 07:01 AM | #21 (permalink) | |
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
Location: In the dust of the archives
|
Quote:
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. |
|
10-04-2007, 09:36 AM | #22 (permalink) |
Tilted
Location: St Louis
|
Bringing troops home "to make them safe" is a weak argument. People in the armed forces know what they are getting into when they sign up. They know what they are getting into when they RE-ENLIST. Which they have been doing.
The real solution to the problem isnt just 'bringing them home', it's letting them do what they need to do on the ground to complete the mission. Therein lies another problem. What's the farking mission? At first it was "take out saddam" well, we did that. Next was "set up a government and get a constitution" well, we did that. Now we need to ensure that the government that we've help set up (or, as the left wingers will say "installed to be puppets") have the resources to run themselves and protect their own nation. Then, we should be able to bring our troops home. But, to just pack up and come home and not realize that the situation there would go to complete crap the second our troops were gone, is short sighted. While every soldier that dies is a tragedy, our nation was built and protected by soldiers who were willing to die, and were on the front lines someplace else, so the front lines wouldn't be in the USA. |
10-04-2007, 12:08 PM | #23 (permalink) |
Tilted
|
I'm getting REAL tired of Democrats doing nothing to stop this stupid war.
You don't need 60 votes to stop the war. You only need 41 to filibuster the funding for it. We've had that for a long time, since even before the last election. I think I'm going to stop saying "we" when referring to the Democrats. |
10-04-2007, 12:25 PM | #25 (permalink) |
Tilted
|
BigBaldRon raised the key point, but I draw a diffent conclusion.
Would things turn to crap if the US were to pull out quickly? I'd have to agree that they would. But thats where I get off the neo-con bus. As bad as they would be, things will turn even crappier if we stay. We just don't have a dog in that fight. The idea that we are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here is simply not true. Who are "they" anyway? The war in Iraq is a civil war between the Shia and the Sunni for political power... THERE, not here. After the Shia slaughter the Sunni they are not going to come to the USA to get the Baptists. And don't give me any BS about Al Qaeda in Iraq. They are a tiny little bit of the problem, didn't exist before we got there, and will be decimated by either the Sunni and/or the Shia after they stop fighting each other. More to the point, fighting them THERE has no bearing whatsoever on whether some cell launches a terrorist attack here. There. Is. Just. Simply. No. Connection. |
10-04-2007, 12:42 PM | #26 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Soldiers die in combat but they also die for other reasons. If you really wanted to know if they would be safer another thing to look at would be the death rate of our comparable civilian population and at least adjust for that factor.
__________________
"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." |
|||
10-04-2007, 12:57 PM | #28 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
__________________
"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." |
|
10-04-2007, 01:02 PM | #29 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
ace...you dont think its political bullshit to compare accidental deaths to deaths by hostile action, particularly as a result of an invasion and occupation of a country that did not pose an imminent threat to the US nor harbor those who did attack the US?
From the US Census Statistical Abstract - U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths by Manner of Death: 1980 to 2005 (spreadsheet #502)
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-04-2007 at 01:16 PM.. Reason: added link |
10-04-2007, 01:25 PM | #30 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
you don't care enough about the troops to want them to be safe, and you can't make a reasonable excuse for that so you make a weak strawman. Or, you can actually answer my question. My convictions include but are not limited to wanting Americans not to die or be injured because some rich white people want to be more rich. Not only should we have never invaded, but we shouldn't be there now. We're just another sect in the war. |
|
10-04-2007, 07:00 PM | #32 (permalink) | |
Tilted
|
Quote:
|
|
10-04-2007, 10:19 PM | #33 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
Yeah what an uprising. What's the Dem. Congress approval rating? 11%
Yeah, watch out for the title wave people.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas |
10-05-2007, 02:52 AM | #34 (permalink) | ||
Tilted
|
Quote:
if only the rest of us could be paid so handsomely for holding our beliefs. Quote:
think about it. the republicans aren't going to support the democrats in congress pretty much whatever happens, so basically the max rating for the dems in congress is 50 percent. from there the ratings totally depend on what the democrats and independents in the country think of the job the congressional democrats are doing, and many many democrats and independents are frustrated with democrats' inaction on the war, which is why the ratings are so low. if the democrats started standing up for what they believe in, their ratings would shoot up. that's the movement i'm talking about, it's reflected in polls of popular opinion -- where the war and other current government policies are RESOUNDINGLY unpopular and people are begging for change -- not in polls of congressional popularity.
__________________
The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity. -- Bruce Lee Last edited by MrTia; 10-05-2007 at 02:58 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
10-05-2007, 06:20 AM | #35 (permalink) | |||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps, the problem is that no one defined what they meant by "safer". If the question is: What is the increased risk of being killed or injured as a soldier in Iraq compared to being a civilian or a soldier deployed in a non-combat arena, that is something that can be calculated. Therefore, I would not agree with your comment above. And, I think you purposely took the exchange out of context, indicating a level of intellectual dishonesty on your part. Yes, you can consider that a personal attack. I consider it an honest assessment. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"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." Last edited by aceventura3; 10-05-2007 at 06:31 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|||||
10-05-2007, 07:13 AM | #36 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
My Democrat friends? I'm Green, through and through. I've actually never been a Democrat. I went from not caring to Libertarian to Green. I skipped Dem altogether. So when I hold their feet to the fire, I am doing it from the outside, just as I do when I call the GOP on their bullshit. What I was saying is that calling into question the motives behind my wanting the troops safe was borderline Bill O'Reilly. Not behavior anyone wants to emulate.
By "them be safe" I mean not in unnecessary danger. Obviously, as BigRon has said, they did sign up for this. If the US ever were in real danger, they've stepped up to say "Not if I've got anything to say about it." Iraq was no danger to the US. We're our own worst enemies as we're the ones committing flat out stupid actions that facilitate the hatred of the US (like invading a sovereign arab country, for example). What I don't want is the military being pawns for stupid bullshit. When a soldier dies in Iraq, they didn't die protecting the US from anything. As someone from a military family, that's infuriating. As someone who has a ton of military friends and family, it's unacceptable. I'm okay with soldiers being in danger. I'm not okay with them being in danger for no reason. Iraq was a mess under Saddam. It's a clusterfuck now, way worse. Here's the thing. People talk about how we have a responsibility to stay and see it through. What about out responsibility to not make it worse? What about our responsibility not to take actions that are responsible for helping terrorism? What about our responsibility to admit we were wrong? This thread is supposed to be about the questionable decisions of the Democrats as of late, though. As nonplussed said above, They can filibuster and bring things to a halt. They can prevent all GOP legislation from going through. We don't have 60, but we do have the majority, and that can be used to bring things to a halt until the GOP swallows it's pride and is finally responsible. |
10-05-2007, 07:37 AM | #37 (permalink) | |||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I also, say that wanting our troops to come home safely and unharmed is a given, that question has no place in the discussion about the war in Iraq. The issue is the war. Quote:
__________________
"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." |
|||||
10-05-2007, 07:51 AM | #38 (permalink) | |||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Remaining there is madness. |
|||
10-05-2007, 10:49 AM | #39 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
The Democrats only have three options:
1) Maintain their hardline convictions and continue to introduce bills that provide for phased redeployment to begin immediately (along with other conditions) 2) Not introduce any bills or block any Republican bills that are introduced 3) Try to build consensus on a new strategy (including an exit strategy) with moderate Republicans who no longer believe the Bush strategy is working The first option is the most noble, but will not achieve the desired results in the current environment in Congress The second option is the most irresponsible and would result in the cut-off of all funding, endangering the troops and, without some type of meaningful transisiton, creating even greater short-term chaos in Iraq. The third option is the only one that can potentially result in achieving the goal of a meaningful change of US policy and strategy in Iraq.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
10-05-2007, 11:44 AM | #40 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
A view from the far left: Quote:
What we have is a President with a clear vision, goals, objectives, and a singular focus against a Democratic Party that lacks clarity on the issue. Perhaps their focus will become clearer after their presidential nominee is selected. However, those looking for a quick end to our military being in Iraq, are going to be disappointed. At least the presidential candidates are starting to be clear on that issue. Good for them. Perhaps the double speak will end. Or, Perhaps not.
__________________
"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." Last edited by aceventura3; 10-05-2007 at 11:47 AM.. |
||
Tags |
accountable, dems, hold |
|
|