Democrats are more complicit than republicans in keeping our troops in Iraq? BULLSHIT!

[bigtree]

When are we going to focus our energy on the republican obstructionists who refuse to vote for a timetable to end the occupation?

The question of whether or not legislators support an exit from Iraq is not precluded by this one supplemental that passed. All legislators have to do is vote in sufficient numbers for a bill that contains timetables. Nothing has changed in that equation and the heat should be on these legislators who are still standing in the way of a timetable bill; this time without any cover at all from the question of whether the vote is 'hurting the troops'.

Let's see some fire here under the republicans. The majority of our party is STILL in favor of setting an exit date from Iraq. It's the republican minority which is blocking legislation that contains timetables. THEY should receive at least as much of the nasty criticisms folks here are foisting off on Democrats.

[librechik]

1. We have been taken over by pirates, desperate criminals willing to do anything

murder, torture, rape, child rape, larceny, mass murder,assassination, extortion ANTHRAX etc....

The tools our Dem leadership have are just what's written down in the laws--laws these guys have shown they have nor respect for whatsoever. they also have their own committed dupes in places of power within the justice system. That's how they got in in the first place.

Would any of us do any better?

[jean]

3. Having just seen Pirates 3, I can say bushco is way too organized to be a pirate organization

[librechik]

6. if only this were a comedic Disney flick instead of real life

I'd be laughing my head off. The way they name the characters in this script is so droll." Monica Goodling?" Ken "Lay" (fucking the consumer) George "Washington" Bush? (everybody's favorite patriotio pussy)

Who's writing this shit...Dickens?

[jean]

24. gw is george walker (bush).

[librechik]

27. I know, I was just taking liberties with the W.

:loveya:

[Dhalgren]

2. All the Democrats had to do was nothing. An appropriation bill has to be brought

by the majority party in the House. They could have continued to send Bush the bill with time-tables or not sent anything, at all. Kucinich spoke numerous times saying that the House should simply not fund the occupation, but they wouldn't listen. So the Democrats funded Bush's occupation of Iraq - not the Republicans this time, but the Democrats. That is why the Democrats now own a part of this slaughter house occupation. They funded it...

[bigtree]

7. The crux of the matter still stands, with republicans standing in the way

Either they are for setting a date certain for withdrawal or not. The majority of Democrats, including most of those who voted anyway for this one supplemental, are strongly in favor of voting for timelines. That hasn't gone away.

A veto-proof majority votes for timelines and the troops come home, money and all. The one's standing in the way of that are republicans, not our Democrats.

[Dhalgren]

12. Explain to me again how the democrats were forced to fund the

occupation? Who forced them? How did the mean old republicans trick the noble Democrats into giving Bush yet another blank check? The democrats made a political calculation - just like many of them did back in 2002 on the IWR - that it was better for them to fund the occupation and have hundreds, thousands more die than to end it. The Democrats had the power to do it, and they didn't. The little dictator can't veto a bill that he never receives...

[Virginia Dare]

16. What about the ones that voted against it?

are you holding them accountable as well?

[bigtree]

19. who said they were 'forced'? They voted their conscience

The majority of those same Democrats who voted to let the supplemental pass with out timelines also voted for the bill when it contained them. Those same Democrats will be in favor of of another bill that's presented with timelines. The majority of Republicans appear to still be standing in the way of that. THEY are the problem with an exit from Iraq, not those Democrats who did then, and still, support timelines but were in favor of allowing this one supplemental to pass.

BTW, those who are dying right now in Iraq would still be dying, even if the supplemental hadn't passed. Bush still hadn't/ hasn't gotten off of his occupation and there's no evidence that he would anytime soon. no matter how much some folks expected him to notice and care about any degradation of the forces enough to bring them home.

[Virginia Dare]

15. Let's assume they did that...

I have no doubt that Bush would have taken it out on the troops in order to make them look bad. I fully believe this madman has already committed mass murder to get his way, I have no doubt he'd do it again.

The Rove smear machine would have been working in overdrive pounding away on them for abandoning the troops in the field. This could easily have turned public opinion fully against them.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Keep making excuses. You are very convincing. nt.

[bigtree]

8. the supplemental is passed. you can keep crying about it

or get back to holding the opposition accountable for their obstruction.

[ProSense]

5. Democrats are not "more" complicit, but they need to get out of the way

so that people can get a clear view of the Republican obstructionists. There was absolutely no message that the Republicans are being obstructionists sent by this bill. Remember a bill was passed that included a timetable, albeit not by a veto-proof majority.

Democrats should have held Bush's feet to the fire.

What did they have to lose? If the vote on the bill had been split 50-50, Cheney would have been forced to be the tie-breaker. If only 49 Dems had voted against it, it still would have passed.

If the bill failed, the Democrats would have succeeded in standing up to Bush. There is absolutely no jeopardy to the troops on the ground.

[bigtree]

11. The majority of Democrats are NOT 'in the way of setting timelines for an exit from Iraq

It is the republican minority, led by Bush, who is standing in the way of passing a bill which includes timelines. The issue will be raised again and we will see who is in favor of leaving Iraq and who i still standing in the way. So far, the majority in our party is firmly in favor of voting for an exit.

[ProSense]

13. Where do I say that?

I said get out of the way "on this bill" so that Republicans can be seen as obstructionist.

[Lerkfish]

9. it seems really important to excuse the capitulation by misdirection.

not really sure why that is.

[bigtree]

14. the supplemental vote is OVER

we need to move on and stop pretending that it is the Democrats who are standing in the way of an exit from Iraq. It is Bush and his republican enablers/obstructionists who are the problem, not Democrats who voted for this one supplemental. The majority of our party voted for the supplemental when it contained an exit date. That majority is still in favor and in place to vote for any other bill containing timelines. The republican obstructionists are not.

[ProSense]

18. Do you believe the Republicans are going to stop being obstructionists in September?

What then?

[bigtree]

21. It's the same equation then as now, supplemental passed or not

Do they support and indefinite continuation of the occupation? yes or no?

One vote by a veto-proof majority brings the troops home, money and all.

[ProSense]

25. If Congress can persevere to end a popular war

“That’s how we stopped the war in Vietnam. We stopped the money. We cut off the money. The president vetoed the bill; we went through that. ‘This is déjà vu all over again,’ as Yogi Berra said, Holtzman said. “The president vetoed the bill in 1973. We gave him the same provision on various bills and he finally said, ‘Okay, give me another 60 days to keep the bombing of Cambodia going, and you’ve got 60 days and it’s all over.”

link

They should be able to persevere to end an unpopular one.

[bigtree]

30. We can introduce the same timeline provision over and over.

Same effect.

[ProSense]

36. How do you know that?

Maybe it would have the same effect it did in 1973. Where public anger be directed: at Bush or the Democrats?

[bigtree]

37. It's been shown that Bush has many avenues of funding to keep our troops there

"so long as he's president" no matter what funding Democrats would manage to block. *GAO said so this week.

[ProSense]

38. For a while, yes. So why all the alarm and rush to pass a bad bill?

Weak by Webb's definition.

[bigtree]

40. because the legislators felt the funding was necessary for the troops already deployed

as well as for those on the way, and those in support positions around the region and here at home. They may not have felt that merely withholding those funds would have knocked Bush off of his occupation as the opponents claimed it would.

They may have been influenced, as well, by the inability of that particular legislation to further their goal of advancing the timelines.

[onenote]

39. Holtzman's history is a bit misleading

The bill she refers to was passed in June 1973. US combat troops were already fully withdrawn. That withdrawal was pursuant to the terms of the Paris Peace Accords, not a defunding bill. In terms of the war ending in 1975 with the fall of Saigon (two years after US combat troops left), some people attribute that in part to defunding bills that passed, particularly one that passed in 1975 cutting off all aid to the South Vietnamese army. But the withdrawal of US troops was not the result of a defunding bill.

[jean]

yes- why don't we pressure Repubs on this? Norm Coleman, R-MN, didn't even vote and is up for

re-election in '08. He is a longtime bush-bootlicker.

We can complain about our Dems, for sure.

But let's not overlook using the power of our considerable clout on Repubs like Norm Coleman (all over the internet, ltte's and back).

[bigtree]

35. he's feeling the heat and should bend

I'd like a list of those republicans whose seats are up and I'd like to have a campaign targeting their constituency.

[jean]

42. precisely! We have a lot of energy, creativity and resources to work with.

[Blue_Roses]

10. but that would make too much sense and frankly, some here

just like the gloom and doom scenario.:eyes: Logical and rational thinking--here--on DU--what where you thinking?

:sarcasm:

[mmonk]

17. No, the Cheney democrats aren't more complicit than republicans.

They are complicit like republicans who are loyal to bush and Cheney. But not more complicit.

[bigtree]

22. Yet most of those Democrats who voted in favor of letting the one supplemental pass

are also strongly in favor of voting for an exit date. In fact, most of those Democrats who voted for the supplemental without timelines also voted for the supplemental when it contained the timelines.

[mmonk]

28. That is true. My beef is they won't consider

a meaningful end in that because of them, the democrats in congress can't use their full constitutional power.

[Phredicles]

20. No, not MORE complicit. But complicit enough;

I feel like, I helped elect a Democratic majority and all I got was this lousy blood on my hands.

[bigtree]

23. Yet most of those same Democrats are still strongly in favor of a bill which contains timelines.

Most just finished voting in favor of one when the supplemental contained an exit date.

[GeorgeGist]

26. Sorry to rain on your...

chickenshit parade, but the Dems caved.

[bigtree]

29. yet, those Democrats who 'caved' are still in favor of an exit from Iraq

The majority of those Democrats who voted to let the supplemental pass without timelines also voted for the same bill which included them. Those Democrats are still ready to vote for a bill which includes an exit date.

And you can fuck off calling me a chickenshit.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. All is not lost....yet!

[librechik]

31. Leadership made a backdoor deal with the Repubs:they can have this one in exchange

for a redeploy out bill in September that they will support.

That's obviously what happened. Now whether the traitorous lying Pukkkes can be trusted to do this is another matter. The collegial senate just works like this.

It is an emergency supplemental after all.

[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.

[rodeodance]

34. you are right---lots of energy down a black hole.

[donkeyotay]

41. It always works that way, doesn't it? "Dems divided, dems in disarray"

Meanwhile the Republicans who brought us this mess and the people who voted for them are unaccountable for the consequences of their policies.

This summer should be about the blood being spent for Republicans to have a look-see to see if the surge will work with the plan to capitulate to re-election concerns in the fall. The President that America allegedly elected and re-elected is responsible along with the people who believed in him and his ability to lead. When will we spend as much energy denouncing the Republicans as we do denouncing the dems for not being able to stop them? The media loves it. Everyone is to blame except for the people who brought us this war.