When can we hold the Dems accountable?

[Willravel]

Senate approves $150B in war funding
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.

The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.

Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding.

While the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.

"I think that's where you're going to see the next dogfight," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill.

Democrats say their options include directing that the money be spent on bringing troops home instead of combat; setting a date when money for the war is cut off, and identifying a goal to end the war to try to pressure Bush to bring troops home.

Similar attempts have been made but fell short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.

"Many of us have reached a breaking point on this," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "I've done this for too many years. I've waited for the president to start bringing this war to an end. I'm not going to sign up for this any longer."

In the House, Democrats are pushing for a bill that would require the administration to report to Congress in 60 days and every 90 days thereafter on the status of its redeployment plans in Iraq.

The bill, sponsored by Democrats John Tanner of Tennessee and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, was initially cast aside as too mild by Democratic leaders focused on tougher proposals ordering troops home this fall.

But after Democrats were unable to peel off Republican support, the Iraq debate stalled and some four dozen rank-and-file Democrats demanded a vote on the Abercrombie-Tanner bill.

"This will be the first time since the war in Iraq began that we are working together as a Congress instead of one party or another to be a constructive voice in the civilian management of operations in Iraq," Tanner said in a statement e-mailed to the Associated Press.

In February, Bush requested more than $140 billion for the war, and is expected to ask for another $42 billion to cover costs in the 2008 budget year, which began Monday. The Senate's defense policy bill authorizes Bush's initial request, plus an additional $23 billion for the purchase of bomb-resistent vehicles.

In addition to war money, the Senate's defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense.

Republicans predict the bill is on track to be vetoed by President Bush because it includes hate-crimes legislation by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The White House has said Kennedy's proposal, which would let federal law enforcement help states prosecute attacks on gays, is unnecessary.

The House passed its version of the defense authorization bill in May by a 397-27 vote. That $646 billion measure would trim hundreds of millions of dollars from some weapons modernization programs and use the money instead to aid troops in combat.

The House bill has drawn a veto threat from the White House because of provisions insisting the military rely heavily on American-made products and proposed changes to the Pentagon's personnel policies.

So 92-3. Not like 50/50 or anything, which is understandable. No way, Jose. 92-3. I know a lot of my fellow liberals are rooting for the Democratic Congress, but for god's sake... they're all failing at these big important points.

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?

[Seaver]

despite a mandate by supporters to end the war

For some reason this stuck out to me. We were bombarded with countless articles after the '04 Election which said even though Bush won a full majority, and a higher vote % than the first election, it was not a mandate. Now all of a sudden when it's convenient it is.

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.

[Willravel]

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.

[dc_dux]

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.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

They need to be united against the war on every vote. If they manage to cut funding, they have the money already passed by the Senate to get them all home.

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

[dc_dux]

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.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

Sorry, that last post was more a general frustration type of thing.

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.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by willravel

So how do we get something that's veto proof when the people refuse to hold Bush to task in any real way?

If I had the answer, I would be parading in Lafayette Park across from the White House with a billboard (scaring all the tourists from the red states )

[LazyBoy]

Originally Posted by Seaver

For some reason this stuck out to me. We were bombarded with countless articles after the '04 Election which said even though Bush won a full majority, and a higher vote % than the first election, it was not a mandate. Now all of a sudden when it's convenient it is.

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.

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

[shakran]

Originally Posted by Seaver

For some reason this stuck out to me. We were bombarded with countless articles after the '04 Election which said even though Bush won a full majority, and a higher vote % than the first election, it was not a mandate. Now all of a sudden when it's convenient it is.

I think you read that wrong. It's a mandate by supporters, not by the country. In other words, the people that voted for the democrats wanted them to go in there and end the war. I think that's a fair statement, especially when you look at the issue votes from that election. Not one state with gay marriage laws on the table got 'em passed. In other words, the country's sentiment was still conservative, but they wanted the dems to come in and stop the republicans from pursuing the war.

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.

[seretogis]

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?

[ottopilot]

edit

[Elphaba]

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?

[tecoyah]

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.

[Willravel]

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.

[Seaver]

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.

[Willravel]

We do support that, though.

Most Americans oppose fully funding President George W. Bush's $190 billion request to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while a majority supports expanding a children's health care program he has threatened to veto, a Washington Post-ABC News poll shows.

The poll published on Tuesday also shows deep dissatisfaction with the president and with Congress, partly because of the stalemate between Democrats and the White House over Iraq policy, The Washington Post reported.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...35362720071002

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

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?

Elph.....you have it right. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, one of the most powerful positions in the House, because ALL spending bills go through his committee.

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.

1. Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009.

2. Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments.

3. Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region.

http://obey.house.gov/HoR/WI07/Newsr...talRequest.htm

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.

“This war will cost future generations billions of dollars in taxes that we are shoving off on them and it is devouring money that could be used to expand their educational opportunities, expand their job training possibilities, attack our long term energy problems and build stronger communities.

“If the President really is concerned about stopping red ink, we are prepared to introduce legislation which will provide for a war surtax for that portion of military costs that are related to our military actions in Iraq.

The idea of a surtax was political theater, but it did make a point that needed to be made.

[Elphaba]

Thank you, dc.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by willravel

So how do we get something that's veto proof when the people refuse to hold Bush to task in any real way?

Perhaps they should simply vote and propose legislation based on what they think is the right thing to do rather than worrying about things they don't control. Bush acts on what he believes is the right thing to do and has been unwilling to compromise. He has been getting what he wants. Democrats are making the issue far to complicated.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by willravel

When can we hold the Dems accountable?

On election day?

[BigBaldRon]

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.

[nonplussed]

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.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by BigBaldRon

Bringing troops home "to make them safe" is a weak argument.

So they're not safer in the US than they are in Iraq?

[nonplussed]

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.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by willravel

So they're not safer in the US than they are in Iraq?

US fatalities in Iraq DOD.

Total: 3808 Confirmed: 3806

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx

Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton's term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even the dovish Carter lost more people duing his last year in office, in 1980 lost 2392, than W. has lost in any single year of his presidency. (2005 figures are not available but I would wager the numbers would be slightly higher than 2004.)

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003564.html

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.

[Willravel]

Ace, do you have figures concerning the injured? How about PTSD and suicides?

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by willravel

Ace, do you have figures concerning the injured? How about PTSD and suicides?

I read your comment and did two minutes of research. I agree that a number of factors need to be taken into consideration. But, the knee-jerk liberal response regarding the "safety" of our troops is just political bull shit. If they want to end the war, they should do it or at least act in accordance to their convictions.

[dc_dux]

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)

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I read your comment and did two minutes of research. I agree that a number of factors need to be taken into consideration. But, the knee-jerk liberal response regarding the "safety" of our troops is just political bull shit. If they want to end the war, they should do it or at least act in accordance to their convictions.

Or...
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.

[Elphaba]

Sometimes, I think that I am in another space/time continuum and only dc can hear me.

Chatter on.

[MrTia]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I read your comment and did two minutes of research. I agree that a number of factors need to be taken into consideration. But, the knee-jerk liberal response regarding the "safety" of our troops is just political bull shit. If they want to end the war, they should do it or at least act in accordance to their convictions.

careful what you ask for. i still hold out hope that eventually the liberals in america will find the courage of their conviction. might take a few more senseless blackwater massacres but it's becoming more and more obvious a serious, righteous uprising among the left and the antiwar moderates is the only thing that'll put a stop to this craziness. asking the republicans nicely to stop the war is going to continue to work as well in the future as it's worked for the past few years.

[Seaver]

Yeah what an uprising. What's the Dem. Congress approval rating? 11%

Yeah, watch out for the title wave people.

[MrTia]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush acts on what he believes is the right thing to do and has been unwilling to compromise.

yes, regardless of how much money it makes the people in his administration and the firms who contributed to his presidential campaign coffers, he's stuck by his guns and made sure to keep the no-bid contracts flowing out to halliburton, the firm making tamiflu, and the various republican-owned and operated shock-troop private companies like blackwater.

if only the rest of us could be paid so handsomely for holding our beliefs.

Originally Posted by Seaver

Yeah what an uprising. What's the Dem. Congress approval rating? 11%

Yeah, watch out for the title wave people.

i'm actually reading 38%, which is 10% more than the rating of the republicans in congress.

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.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...you dont think its political bullshit to compare accidental deaths to deaths by hostile action,

Context. Context. Context.

"Bringing troops home "to make them safe" is a weak argument." BigBaldRon
"So they're not safer in the US than they are in Iraq?" Will

Then I say: "Soldiers die in combat but they also die for other reasons."

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.

Originally Posted by willravel

Or...
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.

Perhaps, you should explain what is meant by wanting "them to be safe"? Then we determine if my point is a strawman, and if so get to the real issue which I think is the fact that Democrats don't have the courage to act on their beliefs. And that they in fact created a "let keep our troops safe" bull shit straw man argument rather than taking direct action to stop the war.

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.

If you think that is the reason for the war in Iraq, why not join the fight against those "rich white people". Obviously you don't think they have your interests in mind.

Not only should we have never invaded, but we shouldn't be there now. We're just another sect in the war.

Why haven't your Democrat friends done anything about it? Wasn't the the original point. I am giving you valuable insight.

[Willravel]

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.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by willravel

My Democrat friends?

Sorry, I assumed you might have some. I have some Democrat friends and was raised in a Democrat household. I ask my Democrat friends and family questions on a regular basis. Our new rule is I can't talk politics at Thanksgiving. They seem to really hate being asked questions, I don't get it - other than the fact that they don't really know what they believe.

I'm Green, through and through.

Sorry about that.

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.

I call the GOP on their bull shit as well. Their biggest contradiction is the pretense of being fiscally conservative. That is clearly bull shit. It is very rare to encounter a Democrat who will be honest about their party.

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.

Context. I did not call into question your motives. I just question the truth behind your statement. On the surface it seems obvious that troops would be safer not in Iraq. the reality is that their may be people who live in Washington D.C. at greater risk of being harmed by violence that a soldier in Iraq.

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.

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.

I understand your points.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Sorry, I assumed you might have some. I have some Democrat friends and was raised in a Democrat household. I ask my Democrat friends and family questions on a regular basis. Our new rule is I can't talk politics at Thanksgiving. They seem to really hate being asked questions, I don't get it - other than the fact that they don't really know what they believe.

I do have friends who are Democrats, but they usually just let me do the talking when it comes to politics.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Context. I did not call into question your motives. I just question the truth behind your statement. On the surface it seems obvious that troops would be safer not in Iraq. the reality is that their may be people who live in Washington D.C. at greater risk of being harmed by violence that a soldier in Iraq.

You didn't post any non-death related statistics. What about losing limbs? What about blindness? What about having chunks removed from your body from an IED? What about psychological effects? They're all harmful. Yes, death wise they're safer in Iraq. Not harm-wise. Also, only a small percentage of soldiers are from DC, and DC is the most violent place in the US. Why not compare Iraq to the average? Or compare the worst place in Iraq to DC.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

They're linked. That these soldiers are not dying for their country is symptomatic of the fact that Iraq wasn't about defense, and it's wrong to have a war in which you're the aggressor. outside of the fact that we don't want our soldiers to die for nothing, the reality is that global terrorism is on the rise as a direct result of our ignorant military actions, and Iraq is without any doubt far worse today than it was under Saddam Hussein and it shows no signs of improvement. To the contrary, it's getting worse. The very security forces we're training have simply become another sect in the civil war, and because they're paid so little, a few simple bribes gets rid of their effectiveness (you can't find this on the news, but TFPers who served can verify this). We're switching sides, claiming the terrorists of yesterday are the freedom fighters of today, and arming Iraqi insurgents who killed Americans just months ago.

Remaining there is madness.

[dc_dux]

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.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

I agree, that Democrats in Congress need to build a consensus with moderate Republicans who no longer believe the Bush strategy is working in order to actually change the Bush strategy. But, I think we know that Bush may make changes to his Iraq strategy, however, he will not change his view on his goals in Iraq. That is where one major difference is, and why I keep questioning the convictions of the people in the Democratic Party. Short of making strategic changes, what are the goals of the Democrats in reference to Iraq. Do they want to end the war, bring the troops home, secure the region, fight terrorism, establish a democracy friendly to the US, what? Even Democratic Presidential candidates are not clear on that issue.

A view from the far left:

The Democratic Party’s pretense of opposing the war in Iraq has largely collapsed following a series of defeats in the US Senate last week...

Nothing could make clearer the real position of the party, however, than the Democratic debate Wednesday night in New Hampshire, in which all three of the party’s leading presidential candidates—Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards—refused to commit themselves, if elected, to withdrawing all American troops from Iraq by the beginning of their second term—in 2013.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/se...iraq-s28.shtml

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.