Sooo, Democrats ready to capitulate..AGAIN !

[jaysunb]

:argh:

House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday.

In a complicated deal over the war funds, Democrats will include about $11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush has requested, emergency drought relief for the Southeast and legislation to address the subprime mortgage crisis, Hoyer told a meeting of the Washington Post editorial board.

]If the bargain were to become law, it would be the third time since Democrats took control of Congress that they would have failed to force Bush to change course in Iraq and continued to fund a war that they have repeatedly vowed to end. But it would also be the clearest instance yet of the president bowing to a Democratic demand for more money for domestic priorities, an increase that he had promised to reject

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120807A.shtml

Somebody please wake me when this is over.

[spanone]

1. don't get me started.......again

[babylonsister]

2. And the dim one will veto it sight unseen...

I pray it's a set-up, but don't have much faith in that either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2431146&mesg_id=2431146

[Hydra]

3. oh, yeah

let me wave my flag- we get 20 billion that should have been there in the first place, in return for 100-200 billion for Bush's cronies?

I think that counts as being rolled or being on the take.

[SoFlaJet]

4. Let's face it

this war ain't ending until we get that stiff out of the oval office-not one second sooner. Elect a democrat if you want out of Iraq-even my least favorite Hillary will get us out of there-hopefully we never have to face THAT scenario...

[mac2]

9. Iraq is a done deal.

Congress told Bush to stop building new bases in Iraq yet he does it anyway. He is above the law apparently with this Congress. Only the military (what's left of it) can stop them now.

We have a "war economy" which just can't stop itself. Profits don't come back to America but to off shore banks and the elite few. The Congress like a frat club goes along with it because they want it to make themselves look powerful. Ya...if they're so powerful why don't they go to war?

The betrayers are arrogantly thinking they are fooling us. Guess they just don't care since nothing happens to them or their families. History will not be kind to them. Be caught in a crowd of betrayed workers and military and see how they will deal with this gang of thugs. How blind and stupid are these guys\gals in Congress?

Whose going to bring us out of this mess? None that are running for office now I can tell you that. They are out to ruin us for Empire (and their own bag of plunder).

[AndyTiedye]

5. Surrender Time Again

[Mike03]

6. Very Distressing

It's hard to take much more of this. They are not even trying to do what we elected them to do. It's heartbreaking, because I know many of us wanted to believe they gave a shit and would do something.

[mac2]

12. Tell us another story?

I have heard many of them give great inspired speeches to get elected. We grab out for a person to lead us out of this mess. We want to believe there is such a hero (public service). When they take their seat in DC they become part of the frat club. We become the enemy so they write all sorts of laws to prevent us from talking, protesting, etc. We become the enemy of them taking too much power for themselves. It is not Bin Laden or a "Islamic terrorist" who are the enemy but democracy lovers. They are at war with us and want everything we have.

They are afraid of us and we should take advantage of that. They divide us to keep their power. Religion, abortion, race, ethnic diversity, guns, etc. are all used to divide us. None of this matters when it comes to freedom and our families ability to survive.

I don't think I am being over zealous in believing they (the elite few) are just a gang of thugs.

[BlueStater]

7. Can somebody please tell me how wusses like Steny came to be in charge?

We need leaders now more than ever and if you're not going to lead then just get the fuck out of the way. This is no time for wimps.

[mac2]

11. Steny in charge?

I have long believed they take turns being turn coats. Steny is just the latest betrayer of democracy.

[Bozita]

8. Bush vetoes. Bush roars. Dems run. -- I've seen that dance before.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

10. Republicans and their war-profiteering viruses still gutting the American people. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

13. What capitulation? They squeezed a few billion out of Shrub and...

there is NOT A THING THE DEMOCRATS CAN DO TO GET US OUT OF IRAQ!

Maybe it's not what we want, butr anyone whining about this shouldexplain in detail precisely what else could have been done.

No wishlist, no guessing, no assuming-- what could have been done within the reality of DC politics.

[jaysunb]

14. Sorry, they COULD end the occupation.

No money, means no occupation. Maybe not next week or even next year, but it will begin to reverse the process. Don't buy the " give our troops what they need " bull. One way tickets home are pretty easy to come by, and we won't have to shoot our way out either....that's all they need.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. So, howcum just about everyone in Congress and the military...

says that's not true?

Those of you who believe this-- do you know something they don't?

[jaysunb]

16. reference...please

who says this ?

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Reference my ass-- my own congressman told me so...

in a meeting and I keep hearing it from time to time. I don't have a link and it's such a common utterance amongst people who are actually involved in troop withdrawal that I'm surprised so few have heard it.

Money is, after all, fungible. Besides, aside from the logistics of moving all the military and civilian personnel out, how does one actually define a military operation over there? Just what would be defunded, and what controls could be put into effect to make sure they follow whatever rules are set up? The White House has so far proven that they won't follow any rules, and do whatever they want no matter what the law.

More to the point is that if it's so easy, explain why it hasn't been done-- without reference to cowardice, sellouts, and other such undefinables.

[jaysunb]

19. I know Bushco is incompetent, but

the people that run the Pentagon are not. They are professionals and, just like the plan to invade Iraq was laid, so is a withdrawal plan w/ every possible scenario covered.
The withdrawal of funds is the first step to ensure the emergence of the contingency plan.

Cut off the money. The rest will follow.

[bvar22]

21. Guess you weren't around when Congress ended the VietNam War.

Its in the History books or Google if you are really interested.
Here, I'll help:

"Congress literally dropped the hammer on the Vietnam War with its passage in 1973 of a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 636) prohibiting any further appropriation or expenditure of any funds for any "combat in or over or from the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congendswar.htm

SEE. Congress CAN and HAS ended wars by denying funding.

No Charge.

[ellisonz]

22. At least Nixon promised "peace with honor"

Besides, by 1973 the U.S. military had almost completely withdrawn from South Vietnam.

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm

Face it, major U.S. ground forces are in Iraq until at least through 2009.

There is no magic bill.

[bvar22]

25. "major U.S. ground forces are in Iraq until at least through 2009"

That is certainly true if Obama or Hillary gets the nom.
I fear we will be in Iraq for bout 30 years (estimated Oil Resources), simply because the Corporate War Profiteers control our Government, Democrat and Republican.

Congress HAS the power to End the War, and arguments to the contrary are FALSE.
I cited an example which remains VALID despite your caveats.
The Democratic controlled Congress lacks the WILL to End the War, not the Power to End the War.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[ellisonz]

28. Well DK isn't winning anything and it takes time to move an occupying army...

2010 mark my words.

1. Weak majority in the House.
2. 50-50 Senate.
3. Veto Power.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Actually, I was, but even from the article you cite...

Congress repealed the Tonkin Gulf resolution and Nixon ignored it and several other attempts were taken, none of which worked.

Nine years and two Presidents after the war started, and after the Paris peace talks, a severely embattled Nixon was finally told to stop the war. This is not the same situation we have now. Waterboarding may be wrong, but it ain't bombing Cambodia. (And even Cambodia didn't stop the mandness, it just lead the way.)

Your article also links to another explaining why Congress probably can't stop the war.

[walldude]

18. If it just me or were we promised if Bush wouldn't sign a bill with

any kind of timeline then the Dems would only supply enough money to give the troops what they need and nothing for operations?

[jaysunb]

20. It's not just you.

Reid & Pelosi said as much. I guess Hoyer didn't get the memo. :evilfrown:

[WA98296]

23. Can someone explain WHY they DESERVE our votes?

[dysfunctional press]

24. well, you could be in for a VERY long sleep...

especially if hillary and/or obama end up as our candidate(s).

[dysfunctional press]

26. i may not have ANY reason to go to the polls next november...

the democratic party & the dlc seem determined NOT to give me one.

[Perry Logan]

29. Sooo...DUers have started bitching...AGAIN!

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

this 110th Congress has had more roll call votes this year than any
other Congress in history, almost doubling the number under the previous Congress overseen by Boehner
and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL):
The House last week held its 943rd roll call vote of the year, breaking the previous
record of 942 votes, a mark set in 1978. The vote was on a procedural motion related to a
mortgage foreclosure bill. When the House adjourned on Oct. 4 for the long weekend, the
chamber had reached 948 roll call votes, putting Democrats on pace to easily eclipse 1,000
votes on the House floor in 2007.
Last year, the Republican controlled House held 543 votes, and for historical comparison,
the last time there was a shift in power in Congress, Republicans held 885 roll call votes in
1995. The Senate, which has held 363 votes this year, isn’t on pace to break any
records, but has already surpassed the 2006 Senate mark of 279 votes.
Much of the lack of progress can be traced back to obstructionism by conservatives. Approximately “1 in
6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes,” noted a JulyMcClatchy report. “If this
pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous
record number of cloture votes.”
It’s interesting that Boehner is criticizing the 110th Congress as doing nothing. After all, the House, under
his leadership, met for just 101 days during the second session of the 109th Congress, setting the record
“for the fewest days in session in one year since the end ofWorld War II.”