Why do the Dems even need to bring the spending authorization to a vote?

[kohodog]

Can't the leadership table it? Even if they can pass a law restricting funds they will not have votes to overturn a veto. So why not just table it. The Republicans did things like that and still would if they were in power. Can't Reid and Pelosi just set it aside and stall, and wouldn't that have the same effect to stop the war?

[msongs]

1. they don't have to allow a vote. they choose to allow it. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

2. They don't. have to.

This has been the charade they have played out for our benefit since this Congress was seated. Mock opposition through bills that won't pass followed by voting through the War Party Agenda unsullied by timetables and restrictions. It is a cruel farce.

[Olney Blue]

3. They won't cut off funding for troops on the battlefield.

[David__77]

4. The way you formulate that is incorrect.

It would be cutting off funds for military operations, not "for the troops in the battlefield." The salary for the troops need not be affected. Their pay would not be hindered in any respect.

[Olney Blue]

11. I should have used the sarcasm smiley.

[David__77]

13. OK, good lol...

Good to hear!

[Olney Blue]

15. Maybe....

you haven't noticed me posting against the screaming chimp in the anti-war threads. :hi:

[ThomWV]

6. Why not? The guns won't stop shooting. Nothing would change.

[Moochy]

7. Validate the Republican Frames!

[Olney Blue]

9. Yes, that was my point- its the reason the Dems keep giving.

:banghead:

[Moochy]

16. yes it's aggravating to the extreme

I'll join you at the wall. I think that most yellowdogs that validate the frames know what they are doing.

:banghead:

[Zhade]

34. Of course, voting against it would NOT do so, since the troops are paid via the "Defense" budget.

NT!

[babylonsister]

5. Please, please, please check this out:

Democrats' Innocent Bystander Fable


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7raAL3Wld0&eurl=http%3A...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1783195

[kohodog]

10. Thanks, I missed that post. We need to make them aware that we're aware.

Write them, write ltte's.

Somehoew I feel violated. This has to end.

[babylonsister]

12. You're very welcome. Pls. save that youtube so you can use it

fruitfully when someone says we don't have the votes, which I've heard ad nauseum on here.
I don't have or know the Congressional rules, and I might be crazy to trust David Sirota,
but I do.

[leftchick]

8. they do not have to

they choose to out of complicity to extend the occupation for oil. It is as simple as that.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. they don't have to

but there are a few reasons why they don't.

First, it would be politically unpopular. Most Americans don't support defunding the effort.

This poll shows 37% support for defunding:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26791

This one shows 36% support for defunding:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/opinion/polls/main2731960.shtml

This more recent one shows only 18% support for defunding:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343


Secondly, it would be very unpopular within the Congress. There certainly is no majority in favor of defunding, and it would be seen as terribly autocratic for the leadership to prevent a bill on such an important issue from coming to the floor.

[valerief]

17. The hell with polls. We need leaders, not asshat polls. It's time they

played dry cleaners and told Bush, "No, we don't have your pants. Deal with it."

[Disturbed]

18. Americans want the US Occupation to end but don't want to

cut the funds to do so. If Congress sets any time tables with a Bill that Bill would be vetoed. Congress could not over ride that veto. How in the Hell is Congress spozed to accomplish what Americans say that they want Congress to do?

[valerief]

20. Americans want to cut the funds. Americans don't believe the asshat polls. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

23. Do you have any evidence for that?

I know it's hard to accept the fact that the rest of America doesn't agree with one's opinions, but just denying the evidence isn't helpful.

I posted three polls above. Do you have any that contradict them?

[valerief]

26. With what? An asshat poll that doesn't mean anything? Sheesh. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

29. so no

you don't have any evidence to back up your point.

simply dismissing three different polls as "asshat" polls isn't convincing evidence. It's just childish, in fact.

[Odin2005]

45. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt

Those "asshat polls" tell us what Americans think. DUH!!!

[GeorgeGist]

27. The 'American' you describe is ...

schizophrenic and should be ignored. No War means No Funds.

[valerief]

32. The military has gotten all the money in the friggin' world. They have puh-lenty

of money. They just have to stop stealing it.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Well they won't be leaders for long

if they do politically unpopular things.

What do we gain if we lose the House and Senate and the White House next year?

[OzarkDem]

35. Dems need to influence public opinion

not be a slave to it. Public opinion polls on complex issues like this are very deceiving. Respondents are often forming opinions without knowing all the facts and nuances.

The GOP controls the agenda, even when not in power, because they learned long ago to shape public opinion, instead of being a slave to it.

This has been a major weakness of Dem leadership since the 1990's. They've forgotten how to make their own case to the public and stand behind it.

[stimbox]

36. Questions are "questionable"

Gallup poll question: "Denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq"

CBS/NYT: "Withhold funding until Bush sets timetable"

Only the Zogby poll supports you assertion about defunding the occupation.

These pollsters aren't asking the right questions.
If they did, I'm sure the percentages would be higher.
Especially, if they let the pollee know that the dufunding wouldn't strand the troops in Iraq or cut off their salary.

[TahitiNut]

19. It'd only take 41 votes to filibuster it to oblivion - forcing withdrawal.

But it's not reasonable to expect the interests of the vast majority of the People to be represented with such commitment. At least not these days.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. and as I showed above

it is entirely untrue that the vast majority of Americans support defunding.

[TahitiNut]

25. That's not what those kinds of polls show at all.

Those polls show the majority in favor of leaving but they're presented with an array of choices that make their preference for one approach appear like oppostion to others - giving those who seek to mischaracterize public opinion more than enough opportunity to make such claims. Even when polled pro or con, the presentation of the array of 'choices' (including those with little or no chance of being selected) folks tend to fixate on some talking point and claim an opposition to an approach which might be far preferable tha the more likely alternatives. The question has been framed to death, along with disinformation regardingthe consequences of most of the choices..

When such polls are presented by cherry-picking only one of the choices and claiming the compliment of the share is "opposed," that's a propaganda technique - disinformation and spin. It's reprehensible when done knowingly - stupid when done ignorantly.

Only the totally insane favor a status quo in Iraq, or anything close to it, without a forseeable end in sight. Fervently partisan Repubicans and week-kneed Democrats are playin the Scarlett O'Hara game: "I'll think about that tomorrow." Political cowardice is what makes folks act catatonic in the face of an on-going atrocity like Iraq.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Most people want

exactly what the Dems in congress are trying to do.

Most people do NOT want what you want.

Politics and government don't work on the timetable many of us would like, but it's the system we have.

[TahitiNut]

31. Simplistic and superficial bullshit.

For exactly the reasons I already explained.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. I'm afraid

the only simplistic and superficial bullshit is coming out of your keyboard.

Can you provide evidence that the majority of Americans support defunding the war now? Or do you just have a hard time believing that the majority of Americans don't agree with you?

I don't see why you have to act so hostile - I've been calm, and I've provided evidence to back my assertion. Furthermore, I haven't once given MY opinion on what I would like Congress to do. I was rebutting the argument that they're ignoring the will of the majority of americans by not cutting funding.

Do you want to discuss this like an adult now?

[TahitiNut]

40. Learn to read better, first.

Whether reading the post in which I said WHY I regard the poll results and the "framing" of such questions regarding Iraq as "simplistic and superficial bullshit," reading the post to which you responded (and were so apparently eager to take personally that one might think the shoe fits) where I called it "simplistic and superficial bullshit," or reading the polling more analytically, it seems your reading comprehension isn't sufficient "to discuss (anything) like an adult."

What I find particularly interesting is that even as flawed as the polling is, IF about 41% of the people want Iraq Occupation funding blocked AND it only takes 41% of the Senate to block it, it seems there's a sufficiently congruent representation to make such a choice valid according to the rules - and in principle.

After all, that 41% required to block cloture and debate such funding to (legislative) death isn't all that bad in terms of democracy, imho. It has always seemed to me that there's a lot of legislation that SHOULD NOT be passed when there's a energetic constituency of about 40% against it - particularly when it comes to issues like this illegal and fraudulently-launched invasion and occupation.

[Disturbed]

22. Compromise is a dirty word yet sometimes it needs to be

done. Could the Dems & Repugs agree to a major draw down of US Troops & a cut off of major money to Mercs & leave around 50K Troops & 60K Mercs in Iraq for another year to defend the Green Zone, Embassy & Oil fields? Also, around 10K Troops to work with Iraqi troops & tribal militias to rid Iraq of al Q? Biden's concept of partition has some merits, as well. Does it have to be an all or nothing solution?

[David__77]

30. "Partition" should only be up to the people of Iraq.

Britain partitioned Pakistan and India in its colonial arrogance, leading to millions of deaths, not peace. I think it's time new colonialism is put to rest.

[Zhade]

33. They don't.

NT!

[MadHound]

37. They don't need to bring it to a vote

They can defund the war and bring the troops home in the manner that you describe. But sadly they, like many people around the country, seem to want to play politics with peoples' lives, putting their own political career ahead of the lives of innocents.

Disgusting, isn't it.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. Congressional dems

are supporting exactly the course that the majority of Americans support.

But having a slight majority in both houses doesn't give them absolute power to implement it.

[MadHound]

44. First of all, I'm truly wondering whether or not they are

Secondly, there comes a time when you have to do what is right as opposed to what is popular.
Third, the very fact that the Dems have a majority enables them to take the action I described.
Fourth, do you really want to continue playing politics with peoples' lives? Are you that crass and cynical? If so, for shame.

People, innocent people are dying because those in power continue playing politics. It is a gross abuse of authority, and certainly no sign of leadership. Leadership, among other things, means doing what is right as opposed to what is popular. The fact that the Dems aren't taking the lead in this simply shows their lack of leadership, and quite possibly their lack of morals and a soul. Utterly disgusting.

[tritsofme]

41. They need to appropriate funds of some sort to deal with the reality of 160,000 troops on the ground

But they never have to bring a clean bill ala earlier this year to the floor, they can keep passing bills that mandate redeployment and Bush can take or leave it until the money runs out.

At that point however it is a very precarious situation where the media would accuse Democrats of leaving troops stranded in Iraq with no money, food, or ammo even though numerous bills would have passed and been vetoed to this end.

[Disturbed]

42. "leaving troops stranded in Iraq "

That wouldn't happen. The Troops would start drawing down when it was obvious that Busholini's Occupation of Iraq was no longer feasible.

[tritsofme]

43. Doesn't money need to appropriated for that purpose by Congress?

Or can it come out the general DoD budget?

[MadHound]

46. The money needed to bring the troops back can be gotten out of the general DoD budget

It is these supplemental war funding bills that are actually providing the gas to keep the war engine going. Take those away and the war to be brought to a halt, and the troops would still have money to come home. They won't be left stranded, despite what the warhawks say.