Why didn't the Dems just cave earlier regarding Iraq?

[SHRED]

Why the earlier dog and pony show charade with regard to the previous funding bill?

[Greeby]

1. The Daily Show showed a speech from Reid earlier this month

Decrying the same bill from Warner as "tepid" My feeling is somebody got to him somehow

[CTLawGuy]

2. I think the Dems think the R caucus will fold

in september and september is a better opportunity. the moderate Rs are hoping agianst hope that the surge will work and when it doesn't work, they will cave and join our side.

Now that doesn't excuse their cavalier actions toward this summer bill, but I think there is nothin nefarious going on.

[Virginia Dare]

4. That is exactly right...n/t

[truedelphi]

21. When I called Pelosi's office on Wednesday and asked for an explanation

The aide refused - very apologetically, I must add - to make a comment

He said that all he could say was "no comment"

If nothing nefarious was going on, why wasn't your explanation offered?

[CTLawGuy]

24. I dunno

do I have special insight into what Pelosi's reception staff knows?

[Virginia Dare]

3. Something which very few people will acknowledge here..

is that by sending that first bill up to the chimp they were giving him a big FUCK YOU. The leadership is being trashed for not taking a stand, not making an effort, not even a gesture, but that is exactly what that was.

They were on record for defunding the war, Bush vetoed and not enough Republicans would turn against him. It's the REPUBLICANS who are obstructing this process, not the Democrats.

[Dhalgren]

5. Right the Democratic majority in the House doesn't have the power

to stop funding the occupation. Only...some other group can stop funding the occupation. Maybe the Republicans can stop funding the occupation - I mean I know they don't currently have a majority, but someone must have the power and the authority to stop the funding. I know! It's the President! He controls the funding of all military issues, so only he can stop funding the occupation! Damn that mean President, why does he have all the power?


:eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

6. it takes 2/3 to override a veto

do we have 2/3 democrats in each house?

[Dhalgren]

9. To not fund the occupation, the Democrats need only not put forward

a bill. They do not have to do anything else. Funding is active, not passive. If the Democrats chose to fund the occupation they should explain why and be done with it. Don't say they want to stop the occupation, but are funding it because...why?

[CTLawGuy]

11. not funding would not get the troops home

Bush would funnel other money and ration it out at the expense of our soldiers until the end of his term. What does he care, he doesn't need to be reelected?

[karynnj]

27. I agree - In fact, would you put it past Bush to immediately

order that the next month's pay checks to soldiers and vets not be paid - because the Democrats didn't approve the money. How's that for a political nightmare.

[karynnj]

12. Because the Democratic plan was not to defund the war now

it was to match the funding to their proposal to get out in a year.

There is a very small group who want to get out immediately in the House - but none of the Senators agree with that - not even Feingold.

The plan that Feingold and Reid (and likely Kerry and Dodd who immediately co-sponsored) fit the funding to match the passed Democratic timeline. This is not an abrupt withdrawal, but an attempt to use a fixed date to leverage action in parallel to diplomacy.

It is interesting that there is some talk about ISG and diplomacy by Bush - the Democrats are pushing really hard on him - but he is very supbborn.

[Virginia Dare]

17. He's stubborn, delusional and dangerous...

I don't envy them having to go up against him, you ever know what he'll do to get his way. It's a political tightrope they're walking, and the lives of the troops are in the balance, the Democrats don't want to do anything to get blamed for leaving our soldiers high and dry.

[Virginia Dare]

7. He has the power to stop the bill..

over and over again, until more Republicans will vote to override his veto, what's so hard to understand about that? This is not the tactic that will end the war, why keep belaboring the fact?

[Dhalgren]

10. Because you are saying that the Democrats do not have the power

to stop funding the occupation. And they do have the power, they just choose to fund the occupation, anyway. So they should stop trying to say they are against the war, if in fact they actively fund it. Before the Democrats had a majority in the House, they could not stop the funding, but now they could and they choose not to. It is that simple, but the apologists for the Democrats keep trying to say that the democrats don't have the power to stop it - when in fact they do.

[karynnj]

13. They have the power to defund it immediately

but I doubt there is a single Senator for that.

[Dhalgren]

14. It doesn't require any senator's support. The House must originate

all funding bills. If the House does not do it, there is no funding bill.

[karynnj]

16. It won't work if EITHER house refuses

My point is that I doubt there are more than 40 congressmen, if that, who would support immediate defunding.

[Dhalgren]

18. And that is what I have been saying. The Demmocratic Party,

as represented in the House, supports funding the occupation of Iraq. They should be honest about it and say why they support the occupation.

[karynnj]

19. The world is not black or white

Most people do not support leaving NOW. that does not mean they support an occupation.

[Dhalgren]

25. It makes no difference what appeasers say or how they justify

their appeasement. There are many ways to compromise your principles, there is usually only one way to uphold them. Good luck to you and your party...

[karynnj]

26. "My" party - isn't this Democratic underground?

I supported the people pushing for an exit plan - especially John Kerry.

[Virginia Dare]

15. You're confusing the two...

there is a distinct difference between having the power to cut off funding and having the power to pull the troops. One does not necessarily guarantee the other. Bush could leave them there anyway without the funding and that would be a political nightmare for the Democrats.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Yes--I agree. That first bill sent up to be vetoed showed Chimpy,

and America, where they stand. That was a challenge. Yes, it got shot down, but it was important. And in September, they will challenge again, this time with probably more Repubs on board.

[truedelphi]

20. By September one of the following three things will have happened

One) Bush's new TWO (not one but TWO) talking points will have hypnotized the public

Talking point A) If the violence continues in Iraq - Bush will say - see we need to be there because it still hasn't turned around
Talking point B) If the violence trails off, then the surge is working and we need to continue
Yes those two points are in opposition with each other - but it doesn't matter. A nation that relies on Katie Couric for the news is not in a position to decipher irrational, circular arguments.

Two) We will be heavily involved in Iran: therefore Iraq will be needed as a staging area (needed or not, that is how it will be presented

Three) A new terrorist attack will restore the unquestioning loyalty Bush possessed post 9/11

[Virginia Dare]

22. I don't think another terrorist attack give Bush any more

leverage or credibility with the public, quite the opposite actually. No doubt he will attempt another power grab though.

[applegrove]

23. They wanted the withdrawl but know Bush is cold-blooded enough

to veto and reveto until the troops are gravely affected. Someone once said Bush likes to make the rules and force others to comply no matter what. This is just Bush being bush and whatever the issue is..if Bush can push it to the hilt..he will. And he would enjoy it. What is the point in caveing after the troops are beginning to hurt. So the Dems caved now.

I'm sure Bush will find some other way of getting the Dems to make another "Sophie's Choice". We haven't seen the last of the blink contest. There will be some other issue the dems get boxed into in the next two years. It is what Bush and his neocons do best.