So I slept on it. Did not want to react emotionally, I have no problem with our leadership

[Nimrod2005]

They did the best they could with what they had - for now.

I am glad our top two candidates voted against it too.

For now, this is Bush's war, this is the GOP's war, and this is a continuation of what Edwards called the Bush/McCain doctrine, let them hang themselves.

I know people will die, but we did not start this, we all want to stop it, but we just don't have the votes.

I would like to see us have a 60+ majority seats in the Senate and a larger majority in the House.

My fight continues!!! I know Pelosi and Reid feel the same way.

[peacebird]

1. not me

The Dems in Congress backed down, bent over, dropped trou and gave the pres everything he wanted. The Dick/Lieberman/Cheney Dems do not deserve my support, nor will they get it. Hillary and Obama so bravely demonstrated their "leadership" capabilities by voting against the bill AFTER IT WAS CLEAR IT HAD THE VOTES TO PASS. Courage of conviction? Hell no - pure politics and utterly contemptable COWARDICE.

[DUyellow]

2. Obama is all talk, and no leadership, what a let down.

"Hillary and Obama so bravely demonstrated their "leadership" capabilities by voting against the bill AFTER IT WAS CLEAR IT HAD THE VOTES TO PASS. Courage of conviction? Hell no - pure politics and utterly contemptable COWARDICE." you are 100% right

[Clark2008]

3. I've been saying this about our so-called front-runners for weeks, now.

None of them have any vision or forethought.

HRC - finger to the wind
Obama - a bit better in that he opposed the war, but has voted in its favor, along with HRC and other than this bill since he's been in the Senate
Edwards - voted for the war when it was popular, denounces it when that becomes popular

Where's the leadership?

P.S. And people wonder why I don't have a primary candidate, yet, despite how politically active and aware I am. This is why.

[depakid]

34. It was pretty much the same during the Alito vote

Obama criticized the filibuster and Hilary wasn't exactly out in front rallying the troops.

That one will eventually cost us our federal right to privacy and reproductive freedom.

[babylonsister]

4. What you said! nt

[Virginia Dare]

7. Who are the "Cheney" Dems..give me names...

and why are the "Cheney" Dems...:shrug:

[peacebird]

8. DLC Dems, Dick/Lieberman/Cheney Dems

[Virginia Dare]

18. Names?....n/t

[mmonk]

5. It is not bush's war when we pay the price in lives lost and money

or any democratic representative continues to support it.

[Virginia Dare]

6. Thanks for rejoining the land of sanity and rationality..

if they truly and willingly fucked us over for good, I will be very angry, but I haven't seen any real proof that they have. If somebody has any concrete proof that they did, please present it.

[unpossibles]

9. thank you.

and if anything this underscores the media bias as well. I don't have the "who voted for it/against it" info, but I do know that about 200 people voted against funding, although it's played as if all of the Dems voted for it. How come the news never runs a headline that says "one Republican actually voted against his party lines" - that would be more newsworthy.

[Nimrod2005]

10. It was simply impossible to get the votes...It is that simple.

We don't have large majorities in Congress.

[Virginia Dare]

15. They could have gambled and sent it up there again..

like Edwards suggested, but I think it's best if they get some more Repubs to jump ship, and they take away Bush's power for good. I really think this is the best way. I understand the lack of patience around here, because our troops continue to die by the day, but there just aren't any other options at this point.

[Nimrod2005]

27. Thank you! nt

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. John Kerry posted an excellent diary at dailykos

and not only did it receive a lot of replies, but he responded to a lot of them.
To make a long story short, he explained that this was just another step forward in progress in the fight to end this nightmare in Iraq. Bush vetoed the first bill, so it was logical that if they didn't change the bill to remove the deadlines he would simply veto it again. And there was no sense in continuing that unproductive route as Bush simply would have kept vetoing. Harry Reid said the point is to make progress.

They now have another vote on a new bill coming up in September. Since a year ago, when Feingold Kerry first put forward a bill to end the war, they only had a handful of support. They now have more. And they will have even more in September. They did not have the votes for a filibuster of this bill, so please forget about that. But Kerry insists they are making progress, albeit perhaps too slowly for a lot of upset people right now.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/24/114745/908

[Nimrod2005]

31. Excellent!

[mmonk]

12. What's unacceptable is

"we just don't have the votes." Why? Because as a party, we have the numbers. We have the physical numbers to stop this as a party.

[Virginia Dare]

16. We don't have the numbers to send a veto proof bill..

remember the whole show down where Bush said if you send it I will veto it, but they sent it anyway, and he vetoed it, and they couldn't override the veto. That is what is meant by this. The leadership must feel that by the end of the summer they will have a better shot at a veto proof bill, effectively taking Bush's power away.

[mmonk]

22. Here we go again. I guess it's because politicians use this line to try and escape

responsibility. Congress can stop this without a bill. Just as they gave bush authority to use force through a resolution they can take that authority away by resolution. They also have sole control over war and funding. Check your constitution.

[Virginia Dare]

24. Then why is everybody so pissed about the bill?

why is everybody acting like this was the one and only chance to end this thing?

[mmonk]

25. I guess since we have too many who support bush and Cheney

to exercise the rights of Congress, everyone was looking for some sort of sign that meaningful opposition was brewing but instead it appears more of a backslide.

[Virginia Dare]

26. Why do you say it's not meaningful?

I don't see it as a backslide, I see it more as a brick wall. I see signs that the wall is crumbling too.

[H2O Man]

13. I respectfully disagree.

The Constitution of the United States gives the congress the power to control the nation's purse strings. It does not give that power to the executive branch.

Bush came to congress with a request. It is up to them if they meet the request on their terms, or on his.

The Constitution does not have anything in it that says the congress only controls the purse strings when they have the votes to override a president's veto.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Give It A Few More Days

I'm definitely not happy that the Democrats caved without getting anything in return. They DID cave to the corporate media that had them all but giving up weeks ago, and sure enough, they caved to that "Conventional Wisdom"...and I think that's what's sticking in a lot of our craws this morning.

It's not bad enough that boooshie got to extend his war for profit for another 3 months (and that's all this funding was about), it was the pummeling the party and those of us who support it have and are taking in the corporate media. We are being made to look like fools and this is where some of the frustration kicks in. The mantra that if we didn't cave we weren't "supporting the troops" became deliberately spun by the media and this is what ultimately ruled the day. It's time to learn from what happened here and either prevent it from happening again or recognize it for what it is.

The anger coming out of this sell-out is a good thing. It shows how passionate people are and it's only going to get stronger. While we lost a vote...we now look forward to the next battle with stronger resolve. I don't see anyone broken here at all...just frustrated.

One day those who were weak in not standing up to this regime with their votes will be taken into account, but right now, we need to fight a bigger injustice and marshall our sources and resources to beating down the real enemies to our economy, our liberties and our future...the Repugnicans.

[Virginia Dare]

17. They did get some things in return..

just not what they wanted. It wasn't all for naught, although reading posts around here, you would think it was. They got the minimum wage increase without a veto, and that was a big thing. Bush threatened to veto that many times.

[KharmaTrain]

21. I'm With You There...We Could Have Gotten Something For The Veterans

Not to mention Katrina relief...but I think we need an independent prosecutor to investigate the corruption and mess going on there. The shame those suffering in this country were called "pork" is an insult that hopefully wasn't lost on the folks of the Gulf Coast or those dealing with having to cope with the loss of a loved one to this ugly occupation and war for profit.

A couple days ago I did a quickie poll with several issues up and which one people would be willing to accept...boy did I get flamed...LOL. Oh well.

Cheers...

[papau]

19. I agree - the fall bill can not be held hostage to a veto. Pass again but strip out

Halliburton contracts if there is a veto - and let it be known that that will be the result of a veto.

They - the GOP - only understand money.

Threatening those "too weak to stand up to this regime with their votes will be taken into account" is up against local hero status of most folks running - primary challenges rarely work - not to say that they should not be challenged and threaten - I just believe taking or threatening to take money from GOPers will be more effective in stopping this crap.

[KharmaTrain]

20. Change The Framing Of The Debate

The game here is to force Repugnicans to live, eat, drink and breath this war. They wanted it, now let them choke on it. Let's force them to vote continuously on their "support" for this invasion and having to make choice...war vs. minimum wage, war vs. veterans benefits, war vs. medicare and presecription drug reform, war vs. intolerance...and so on. This is where the Rubicon was finally crossed...a majority are against this war and all votes from here on out are strictly for self interest, not the best interests of either the constituents or the country.

[Virginia Dare]

23. Agreed, the ball is now back in Bush's court...

the political pressure will get stronger on him, and he's so delusional he'll never crack. Eventually more and more Repukes will not longer be able to support him and will jump ship and he will effectively by neutered.

[Nimrod2005]

28. Bingo, well said.

[MadHound]

29. Puhleeze, the Democratic leadership has the means to end this war in their hands

And rather than exercising it, they are playing political games while people die. Sorry, but that isn't doing the best you can, far from it. If they were doing the best they could, they would be holding up all supplemental war funding bills in committee, and be out on the bully pulpit explaining to the American people that they were doing what we dictated to them to do, bringing the troops home ASAP.

Instead they fiddle while Iraq burns and people die.

Yes, this was Bush's war, but with the Dems initially enabling it with their votes for the IWR, and their ongoing actions now funding that war, they too have blood on their hands.

It is past time that we hold them accountable. How much blood are you willing to let flow while they continue to play politics?

[papau]

33. Perhaps they need 60 votes to just bring the bill forward if there is an objection - The GOP

did not object on the first go round as they wanted to show off Bush's veto-

Edwards idea was impossible.

As long as the media sides with the GOP, and refuses to characterize the game of forcing a 60 vote backing of funding bills as the GOP denying funds for the troops, the Senate Dems have little real power except as to holding committee hears.

[onenote]

36. the leadership could do it, but its not what the public supports

So why exactly would they? Polls show that while most people oppose the war and want it to end, a substantial majority was against defunding. Maybe that's because they believed that defunding would put the troops at risk and they didn't want that. Maybe that's not even true, but its what they think and it will take time to correct their perception of that, just as its taken time to get the public from supporting the war overwhelmingly, to opposing it overwhelmingly.

Back when Hastert was speaker and had the "Hastert Rule" where a bill could only come to the floor if it was supported by a "majority of the majority" (i.e., a majority of the repubs in the House), Democrats screamed bloody murder and I remember threads here on DU complaining about what an undemocratic fuck Hastert was. Now the Democratic leadership listens to a substantial minority of its membership who want the opportunity to vote for a funding bill, and they are criticized for capitulating.

[MadHound]

38. Actually most people are in favor of just what I spoke of

<http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/feb/15/fox_news_poll_americans_would_vote_to_de_fund_escalation>

The American people are way out ahead of our leaders in Congress. It is past time that they started listening to them and started performing their primary job duty, which is to give voice to the collective will of the people. It was their unwillingness to listen to the will of the people that actually got us into this mess, as they voted for the IWR. More of the same isn't going to help.

It is past time that they stopped playing politics with people's lives and end this war now. The American people want it, the Iraqi people want it, we're supposedly a democracy, let's just do it, pull the money and bring the troops home.

[onenote]

39. actually, they're not.

The question in your poll related to funding an escalation. The question before Congress is funding what is already in place. Only 13 percent of voters favor the defunding that you are propoosing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/washington/25view.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1180120512-zyIbZvJFxdrFbP/faCd3HQ&oref=slogin

[MadHound]

40. Different source, same answer

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600313_pf.html>

Again, forty six percent of the people are wanting the war defunded. Gee, don't you think that we should do this? Is it not the right and moral thing to do? Or are you still in favor of playing politics with people's lives?

[Javaman]

30. Arrrrrggggg!!!! (runs around screaming) What?????

they have the fucking majority in both houses for chirst sakes and they can't even stay on fucking mission.

Fuck them.

men and women, both military and civilians are dying every day and they say that the fight has only fucking begun? They handed moron* everything he* fucking wanted!!

explain to me how that is "a fight just begun"?

If it was a fight, they would have halted the funding period!

What this was is getting the pulp beat out of you by a bully and say while lying on the ground, "at least he had to exert energy to beat me up".

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Nimrod2005]

We don't have a veto proof majority, you knew that right?

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Individualist]

35. Those talking points are so worn out.

:eyes:

[Virginia Dare]

37. So educate us then..

which points of the OP do you not agree with, and give us some rational reasons as to why they are just talking points..