Iraq Vote Splits Democrats Again

[NewJerseyDem]

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/49_94/news/4791-1.html (subscription required)

With the House set to vote today on a GOP-drafted resolution stating that the world is a safer place since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Democrats were scrambling late Tuesday to find a way to express their support for U.S. troops without providing an endorsement of Bush administration policy.

The resolution, which is timed to coincide with this week’s first anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, left Democratic Members privately fretting about the potential fallout for them in a presidential election year.

House Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), have so far stood divided on every key vote related to the conflict.

“They again are putting us in a tough, tough position,” said a Democratic leadership aide, adding that “even highly paid political consultants” couldn’t come up with a way for Democrats to uniformly support the troops and oppose a resolution with partisan overtones.

[ixion]

1. repugs make me sick

I wish the media would stop letting them get away with garbage like this.

[IndianaGreen]

34. "highly paid political consultants make me sicker!

“They again are putting us in a tough, tough position,” said a Democratic leadership aide, adding that “even highly paid political consultants” couldn’t come up with a way for Democrats to uniformly support the troops and oppose a resolution with partisan overtones.

How about a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of all US troops and personnel from Iraq?

[PassingFair]

51. The repugs!

We're the ones looking bad here. Pandering. Compromised. Yuck. Tell me do YOU feel safer? Where's Howard when you need him.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Here's a novel idea Dems

COME UP WITH YOUR OWN FUCKING RESOLUTION AND SIGN IT INDEPENDENTLY..STOP PLAYING THEIR GAME!

[Cocoa]

5. I don't think they can

being in the minority, I think they can only vote on what the republicans give them to vote on.

[NewJerseyDem]

6. But, they still would have to vote against the resolution on the floor

They can't determine what they vote on and a vote on the floor is going to be much more significant than something they signed. This puts the democrats in a very difficult position.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. It would still be a statement...but in that case..see OK Nancy's post

[Matilda]

47. Can they just all be absent at the time?

If they're allowed to do that, it would make a statement.

[Sugarbleus]

49. Better yet...why don't

WE come up with a resolution and send it to DC. It might help them think outside of the box. They seem to be a wee bit confused and stymied about everything lately.. sheesh

Uncounted millions of people around the globe easily saw that Bush was a dick 'tator right from the gate. Everyone protested the war in Iraq. How come our representatives couldn't read the writing on the wall when we could?!!

[Nicholas_J]

3. More political crapola

Hopefully they can point out how goung after Saddam did not prevent Al Qaeda from increasing its activity, and that it was really a mistake to go to war in Iraq based on the idea that Saddam would provide terrorists with the WMDs that he didnt have to give away anyway.

[Nancy Waterman]

4. Can't they just be absent for the vote?

Or better yet, put up an alternative resolution and be sure it gets out. Do a news conference on it or something.

[ithacan]

7. my thought exactly

a boycott of the Republican's Supreme Soviet style "legislature"

[NewJerseyDem]

13. A news conference?

Do you know how many news conferences democrats do. They have tons of news conferences every day but it doesn't get covered. They might get 5 seconds of tape during a 2 minute piece on the resolution and how democrats opposed it but it doesn't change much.

It would better to show up and vote present than be absent. But, still the republicans would say that the democrats don't know what their position on Iraq is and they would still say that the democrats effectively voted no on the resolution by voting present. No matter what the democrats do they are screwed. Hopefully, the media won't catch on to it to much, but I'm sure the republicans will try to make it a pretty big deal.

By the way there is a story on thehill.com saying that Dennis Kucinich will be absent for the vote and in Cleveland for some type of eveny honoring NASA or something like that.

[lastknowngood]

8. Why do they call these fools the Democratic leadership?

any democrat who supports the shrub's war should expect to be defeated in Nov. If they can't figure out how to write their own resolution and issue it independent of the rethuglicans then why don't they just go home. Either your for America or your for the shrub, it's a clear choice. Let the fuc*ing bastards pass what ever they want and boycott it. They are worried how they can defend not supporting the troops, wake the hell up you damn fools the shrub is kill American kids to steal oil for his cronies and lied us into this damn war. Then the tried to cut their pay if you can't win running against this assho*e and the loss of 3 mil jobs then get the hell out of politics.

[PassingFair]

52. Wow!

Tell us how you really feel. Bravo! You put it very succinctly.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[kskiska]

11. What a stupid idea

as if saying it makes it so.

"The world is a safer place since the fall of Saddam Hussein."

[Postman]

12. the world is safer because we voted on it. How dumb are these morons?

and to think they are getting paid for this.

[Clyde39]

14. Black is white----wrong is right----the world is a safer place!

Why do I not feel comforted by hearing these words? Probably because the world seems far less safe now than before.

[Imajika]

15. This is what the majority party does...

...Dem's stuck it to the Republicans pretty good for a long time, it should be no surprise the GOP does the same crap.

Politics is filthy business.

Why people get all infuriated or upset over such things I will never know.

This is an example of why we need to get back in the majority. It is the reason we should always vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election no matter who it is.

Imajika

[Clyde39]

16. Unfortunately, Nader has convinced people not to do this

He keeps saying that there is no difference between the parties and evidently there are plenty of people who believe him......sad, sad, sad.

[Imajika]

17. Don't get me started on Nader...

Were it not for Nader we would all be campaigning for a second Gore term right now instead of trying to pry Bush out of the White House before the damage he inflicts becomes irreversable.

Imajika

[Kenneth ken]

18. It's not a "tough position"

all the Dems need to do is simply state the truth.

The resolution is nothing more than political grandstanding on the part of the GOP - the bombing in Spain is clear proof the world is NOT a safer place, and the GOP is ignoring reality to claim Bush misadministration policies have done anything other than encourage the rise of terrorism around the world.

what would the vote look like if as their name was called every single Dem stood up and said, "The people in Spain would vehemently disagree with this absurdity, and I must concur."

[htuttle]

21. Exactly. Vote the Truth. The world is not a safer place since the invasion

That is not incompatible with any of them having voted for the IWR previously. They were sold a bill of goods, and they were lied to by the Bush administration. They should just state that, and vote against this silly backslapping resolution.

[NewJerseyDem]

23. I think that there is more to the resolution

It this story by the The Hill it says that the vote is on a resolution honoring the troops' bravery in Iraq. So, I assume both the The Hill and Roll Call are talking about the same vote and that the resolution contains multiple provisions. So, if democrats vote no, the republicans will say they don't support the troops.

http://www.thehill.com/news/031704/kucinich.aspx

[librechik]

45. no kidding! another democratic moment of shame...

they are voting their fear and desire for re-election, not the truth, which is obvious to anyone watching tv TODAY!!!

[moondust]

19. It is not safer. Ask Spain and Turkey.

If anything it is more dangerous. Look at all of Europe freaking out. Look at London: An RAF flyover today for a ceremony attended by the Queen had people on the streets ready to run for cover. Bushco has been ineffective against terrorism. It is time for sound leadership.

[cid]

20. The world is not a safer place so whats the problem?

once again the Dems will roll over for the Republicans, just like they have been doing for the last three years.

[mike_c]

22. this is truely sickening-- the involvement of U.S. forces does not...

...make ONE WHIT of difference. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was/is illegal. It has destabilized the ME, increased the resolve of anti-U.S. sentiment all over the world, and demonstrated the bankruptcy of U.S. foreign policy more dramatically than anything since Vietnam.

This should be a no-brainer for democrats and even for all but the most idiotic repigs.

[Malva Zebrina]

41. Unfortunately, they voted for it

and by that very act, whatever they wre thinking, they have boxed themselves in to the corner.

There is no sense whining about it. They DID vote to support Bush in invading Iraq.

So, there is not much they can say about their objections to the Iraq war. They will have to admit that Bush invasion was just fine and all honky dory--we freed all the people and ain't Bush grand. They will have to admit that they actually wanted to do this pre emptive stuff. That is the rub. Politics played like this, that is inherently wrong, does not pay--honor and integritity do in the end. Now the Democrats are stuck. If they had really opposed the war as an illegal invasion, they should have fought Bush tooth and nail with all their might. They didn't.

There are only two conclusions. They actually wanted to invade Iraq, illegal as it was, or they are too weak to even stand up for what they think is right. Niether is particularly commendable

So now they are in a tither and have really no clue as to how to stop the Bush machine and this very effective propaganda.It should NOT be an issue that would decide an election but it HAS become one because Bush has forced it to become one.

The Democrats are disorganised and almost incoherent, focusing on kevlar vests and protective covering for humvees, when Bush people are lauding his "courage" his brilliance as a "leader" in restoring freedoms to the Iraqi people and blah blah blah. They cannot counter a thing aobut that. They voted for the war. Maybe a few weak references to photo ops and campaigning but nothing really of any significant import or effect.

I am sorry to say it, but I watched them there today on CSpan, debating this--the Democrats were weak. The Republicans were all organized in lock step and got to play their same old record over and over and over because they were organized. That record said that Bush is great for invading Iraq , I know it was a lie, and you do too, but the average American does not know--and because Bush keeps the fear factor ever so high. they will be willing to believe that indeed Bush is keeping us safe because he took down Saddam the evil.

[salib]

24. OK, let's get imaginative

This CANNOT be all that this group has to offer the leadership, right? How about these:

1. A resolution that bringing in the "true" terrorists would help to make the world a safer place. E.g., Osama bin Laden. Of course, this means that * could simply "produce" him at the appropriate time, perhaps, but that is to be expected anyway.

2. Resolution that we only take action in the world that will truly make us safer in this time of danger. I.e., turn it around.

3. Best though is probably to truly bite the bullet and stand up to the easy flag-draping that the other side is constantly doing. I.e., this is not a war against terrorism. Going to "war" against something that is not a true "adversary", a person or an shadowy organization, does not make us safer. It is truly a CRIMINAL pursuit, and should be prosecuted that way. It is time to stop letting others, who have much more nefarious and domination-like goals, to define the debate, the alternatives, even the extremes. If we are truly feeling that "we have no other choice ..." when the other side presents us with a resolution, then we had better come up with some real choices.

[NewJerseyDem]

26. But, the democrats can't get their resolutions to a vote

There are currently two resolutions that would condemn the war.

Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) has a resolution that says that the sense of the congress is that the 2000 IWR should be repealed.

Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has a resolution that would repeal IWR.

The democrats can write other resolutions but it doesn't mean that they will get a vote. I doubt the republicans will let the democrats propose a subsitute resolution tommorrow.

[newyawker99]

37. Hi Holland!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[fearnobush]

25. I think the families of 564 dead Iraqis and 200 Spaniards

would not agree. This is a no issue, because its so ridiculous. Vote no Now. Dean is still the bravest of them all. In 1 week, no one will be talking about the 1 year thing.

[NewJerseyDem]

27. Text of proposed resolution

I assume this is the resoultion that will have a vote on Wednesday. It is proposed by the chairman of the International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde (R-IL)

The following is a link to the full text and the text of the main part of the resolution is below that.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.RES.557:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;

(2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;

(3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and

(4) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.

[Kenneth ken]

31. thanks

for the link. I read the whole resolution. I still say the Dems should call it rubbish and point out the world is NOT safer.

" While I do support the troops, and would urge the Administration to turn over ontrol of Iraq to the UN immediately, and unconditionally, so that our troops can return home, or pursue the REAL terrorists in Afghanistan, I can only conclude, based on the fact that al Qaida most recently attacked the Spanish people, it would be wrong for this body to proclaim that the world is safer. The world is NOT safer, primarily because this administration lost focus on the threat of al Qaida and illegally invaded Iraq, which had no connection to 9-11. "

that really isn't so difficult.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

28. I do not understand

Why don't the Democrats behave like professional politicians?

If the Republicans sponsor a resolution saying Support the Troops and Bush Was Right, they should blow it out of the water by sponsoring a resolution saying Bush was a Deserter. Or calling on him to explain an alleged homosexual relationship with Pat Robertson.

Nightly TV news can only have one lead-in story, and in politics sometimes you have to make sure that story is yours. Pandering to voters sensationalism and stupidity is better than allowing the other side to control the agenda. It doesn't lead to better policy, but sadly thats the way the game works.

Here in Australia recently PM John Howard released his "Free Trade Agreement" and was set to recieve 24-7 positive coverage. Labour opposition leader Mark Latham reached into his bag of tricks saved for such an occasion and declared he was cracking down on politicians perks and superannuation, a perennial bitch about politicans here. Guess which story dominated the headlines all week?

I know there are large differences in political culture between our countries, but your Democratic politicians shouldn't be letting the Bush team run over them like this.

[Jim Sagle]

32. I think we need you to come over her and be our Dem whip.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

33. LOL

Not me, but I think most DUers would be better at that than many professional politicians. I think forums like this would be excellent training - think of the Freeper threads that go nowhere.

[Sugarbleus]

50. I think that those of you younger DUer's should

RUN FOR OFFICE! Like our Aussie cousin said, this place has given vent to many great ideas and has shown the strength and vision of many brilliant posters herein. I'm an oldie; my best days are behind me. Any of you younger types should (I wish you would) do what's necessary to get yourselves into office. This forum has truely been a magnificent training platform.

Do it for my kids and grandkids and your kids; do it because we need truthspeaking people with nerves of steal to reign in Washington.

Our future as a nation could very well depend on those of you the brilliant visionaries. GO FOR IT. :bounce:

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Tell the truth

One can make spech after speech denouncing the shameless politicization of troop support, say that the world is not a safer place because of Bush's foolish, immoral colonial war and vote No.

Anybody who thinks the world is a safer place should ask a Spaniard.

[MO_Dem]

30. We're NOT safer until all of Sadam's horrible WMDs

are found! (Do I detect a note of sarcasm in her voice?)

[rocktivity]

35. For once, emulate a Republican

and JUST SAY NO. Call them on it--accuse them for doing purely for political expediency! The Bush Regime are just trying to cover their @sses in case of censure, indictment or impeachment, that's all!

:headbang:
rocknation

[The Stranger]

36. Three Suggestions (I won't charge you for these).

1. Oppose it. They are sending around emails trying the same tactic, trying to force one to choose the troops or the war. This tactic worked for the past three years, but the times they are a'changin. The Spanish vote and other factors, including the rise of JFK 2004, show that the same old tactic might have lost its potency now.

2. Amend it. Why not change it. Then complain when you oppose it that a better one was not adopted as amended. Publish the amended version. Show that you have a different way, a different answer. Give the people something they can consider and support. Stop losing the initiative to the G.O.P.

3. JFK 2004. Have John Kerry address it. It has now become quite clear that he is bulletproof when it comes to the war and the military and the support for troops. He went to Viet Nam, took one of the most dangerous assignments in the War, and earned three Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star and the Silver Star. Have him take the soapbox and add this to his campaign talking points -- the fact that it is a "resolution" shows further the artificial aspects and gamesmanship of the G.O.P., which people are beginning to catch on to.

[NewJerseyDem]

39. Amedments are banned

Democrats were prohibited from trying to offer any amendment because the republicans adopted a closed rule. The democrats can publish their alternative but it won't accomplish much.

The democrats only option if to try a motion to recommit with instrucitons, I believe, but the republicans will defeat it. The democrats always do that but it is ignored usually because they still have to vote on final passage.

I think the democrats should vote present so they won't be accused of opposing the troops. They should say that they support parts of the resolution and oppose other parts and that they can't vote yea or nay to show that opinion.

[Kimber Scott]

40. Then they should offer their own resolution

and make a big damn stink about how the GOP is trying to blackmail them, AGAIN!

[NewJerseyDem]

43. And it will be ignored

Democrats can make a stink all they want but nobody will know about it.

[Disturbed]

38. Do something different: Boycott en mass

The majority of Dems may someday develope spines.
Probably not because most are lackeys of the Oligarchy.

[Nashyra]

42. Why can't they just vote no

and give the same pat answer why. "just like Tom Delay said, you can support the troops without supporting the president", this Iraq war has not made us safer even though we thank OUR BRAVE TROOPS for getting Saddam. They are trying to keep us safe not this administration.

[gasperc]

44. a fucking hotel was blown up, VOTE NO

NO WE ARE NOT SAFER , FUCK THIS FUCKING SHIT, BEFORE THE HOTEL WAS BLOWN AND RIGHT THIS VERY FUCKING MINUTE!

[truthspeaker]

46. Vote NO with pride you goddamn sheep

Vote No and explain why. The facts are on your side. Stop scrambling and start fighting. This is politics, not a fucking tea party.

[kera]

48. hello folks

I just passed out for sometime when I heard Dennis Miller laugher now on Faux Kissinger is on the program, I am not gona to put myself in jeopardy, this message has nothing to do with the original message, I needed to moral support Oh my God I am passing Out because Hannity in on.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOh

[kera]

53. he

Can anyone tell what the fact that the world is NOt safer as the reality shows everyday has to do with suppporting the troup? do you see the correlation?