Someone Pls, HELP Me Understand

[snot]

I do not understand why ANY Dem should have voted yes on the final version of the Iraq War funding, or delayed a no vote until it was "safe" to do so; yet I'm seeing a lot of posts here that seem to take for granted that those concessions were politically necessary, though I haven't seen the reason explained.

But the Dems had a clear mandate from the public: we want OUT of Iraq. So where was the big risk in requiring some kind of meaningful timetable or benchmarks?

As it is, they've completely slimed themselves; and for what??

[shireen]

1. many of us are wondering the same thing.

how many more deaths will it take to get a "nay" vote?

[Horse with no Name]

2. I don't understand either

It SHOULD have been straight party votes in either House.
And since we *are* the majority party...it never should have passed.
I guaranfuckingtee that if the repubs pulled this when they were majority party the internet would have been plastered with pictures of their dicks in little boys.

[rwenos]

3. No Cojones

I can't figure out why they just didn't send the same bill back, and let Bush veto it again and again until the funding runs out.

These folks do NOT run a very good game. Guess now we wait until September. How many American guys and girls have to die, for a lie?

[Az]

4. Thats what I am trying to figure out

I posted a thread earlier trying to figure out if they were trying a different tack to get the troops out. Giving up on the funding battle and instead deciding to focus on getting rid of Bush.

I agree it doesn't make sense. I don't see them being so naive as to not realize the political cost that the yes votes would have. I mean they made sure to preserve all the Pres candidates by making sure they made big public no votes. So they know what impact it has.

There may be things in play that we just don't know about yet.

Or the Dem leadership may be so inbred with Corporate money that they have lost all their spine.

I don't like leaping to conclusions. So I am going to withhold judgement until I see how this plays out. I am going to dump as much pressure on my reps to get the troops out as I can and make sure they know the cost of leaving them there.

[Robbien]

5. Two very powerful groups want the Iraq Carnage to continue

Large no-bid contractors expect their share of this emergency funding bill. These contractors have been paying Dems a lot of attention since November.

AIPAC wants the US troops in Iraq permanently.

[Stephanie]

6. Oh, Grasshopper, you do not understand the Beltway.

Accountability and responsibility are just FICTIONS that the government, and the press, tell the public. So we can sleep at night. Meanwhile they all go to fabulous parties together, and enjoy themselves. Like royalty! It's fabulous! And when they're ready to settle down, they collect big cash payments for towing the line, from their corporate sponsors.

To put it simply, Integrity and Honor are Quaint, Old-Fashioned Notions. There is no such thing any more as Public Service. Our politicians serve THEMSELVES. You are on your own. Good night and good luck.

[jgraz]

7. Add my name to the confused list -- Barbara Lee voted for it

And most of the House Rethugs voted against it. What the hell is going on?

[Tom Joad]

13. Where is the roll call... are you sure you got that right?

[BurtWorm]

19. There were two votes tonight in the House, I see in the Times.

Rangel (my representative) also voted for one, but he and all but Maurice Hinchey in the NY delegation voted nay in the second vote. There was no explanation of the difference that I saw, but presume one was an amendment to the bill that ultimately they voted against.

[jgraz]

23. You're right -- all the progressives voted against the second bill.

[Tom Joad]

8. Maybe they don't really oppose the war?

[illinoisprogressive]

9. no one delayed their vote. They all knew how the vote would go.

I wrote to Keith to say, in a nice way, that he dropped a brick here. No one delayed voting.
I don't understand why they voted yes except fear of being painted soft and not supporting the troops.

[Erika]

12. Do they have family members serving three tours!

We need to get our kids OUT of there. That should be our support.

[Sukie1941]

10. Please explain this statement

".....or delayed a no vote until it was "safe" to do so"

Not sure what you mean by this....

Why did some Senators like Schumer D-NY NOT vote at all?

[Erika]

11. It will be a cold day in hell before I donate to the Dems

Pelosi and Reid should resign with apologies. They let us down big time.

[gravity]

14. Because they have to fund the supply lines to the troops

Bush has us by the balls here, and unless we get the 2/3s majority in the Senate to support us we can't do much about.

Despite what the majority here think, we *HAVE* to fund the war, or we will have a military and political disaster. There needs to be a plan, like the time tables, for us to actually withdrawal from Iraq successfully. Unfortunately we don't have the political support for this at the moment.

[Erika]

15. The country is against the Iraqi war overwhelmingly

Reid and Pelosi chose to fund it. So be it, I won't fund them or anyone who voted with them.

[gravity]

16. But cutting the funding isn't a reasonable solution to end it

Things aren't going to magically get better if we cut the funding.

[Amonester]

17. "we will have a military and political disaster"

please change to the true, but "inconvenient" for too many, reality:

"we already have a military and political disaster"

Thanks.

[gravity]

20. True, but things can easily get worst

My problem I have with the cutting the funding and leaving now is the whole logistics of actually doing so. If there is an explicit plan to transfer the power to the Iraq government leaving a stable country then I'm all for it.

Without coming up with a solution that the different Iraqi factions can agree on, we are asking for a civil war. This will result in even more bloodshed and even the possibility of genocide. Not only that, but the stability of the middle east could be compromised resulting in an even bigger war.

It's hard to predict the future of what the outcome to be, but counting on a civil war to solve the problems is just playing with fire and is can blow up into an unpredictable mess.

[Amonester]

25. It already is an unqualifiable mess,

As long as the illegal occupation continues, as long as the war-criminals' "surges" will continue, that unqualifiable mess will continue, no matter how many more tens, hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands will suffer, no matter how much more tens, dozens, or hundreds of billions the public does not have yet are going to get squandered each fiscal year either by the GOP or the DLC.

This awful mess has been going on for years, and years already, and nothing will change, no matter how much wishes of good will anybody's gonna feel and blatter about it: nothing is going to change in Iraq, at the very least until the day the illegal occupiers of that sovereign nation which owns its own oil fields will either leave, kill all who resist them, and/or chase away the refugees to neighboring borders (to steal their oil).

The war-criminal capitalists will never rule Iraq or the ME (unless they "genocide" all those who resist their illegal invasions). Good gosh, haven't you seen enough bloodshed yet? How much more will you need to see before you just begin to accept this harsh reality?

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

[gravity]

26. It's not an 'us' vs 'them' situation

It's more like an us vs them vs them vs them situation. Cutting the funding will just cut out our involvement, but the war will continue and until one of the factions in Iraq become victorious and takes the country for themselves.

The war is not going to end once we leave. That's why you need to establish a stable government before we can leave, or else there would be more bloodshed.

That's the harsh reality. It would be great if all this mess would end if we leave, but it won't.

[Amonester]

28. Okay. So this mess will not end if "we" stay, and it will not end if

"we" leave.

Wow...

I agree.

Tough choice...

[KingFlorez]

18. Exactly

Some people think that cutting off the funding would end the war, when that just isn't the case.

[Clark2008]

21. Cutting funding ended Vietnam. Cutting supplies ended the Civil War.

How, exactly, would it NOT work?

[gravity]

22. Because those wars didn't leave a power vacuum

The problem is there is not a government to take over the duty of ruling the country when we leave.

The Iraqis will have to fight it out until someone wins.

[noise]

24. They

could have pressured Bush to accept their terms..."Hey America, we want some accountability but Bush cares more about a blank check than funding the soldiers."

That would have required real opposition which for some reason is something they refused to do. The effort put forth was shameful. In fact it has been for years. The disturbing thing is that we don't know why. Just guesses...corruption, threats, blackmail, class war, etc.

[gravity]

27. They tried, but Bush vetoed it

and now they can't get the support in Congress to overturn it, so what do you expect them to do?