View Story | 23 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
but priority.
by zashvil on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:23:32 AM PDT
for your opinion, but I mostly agree with you. It's a lousy situation. We have never had the votes to override. We may pick up a few stray Republicans in September -- we may not. Those votes won't constitute an override ability either.
What a lot of people seem to have forgotten is how bloody (in both senses) long it took to end the Vietnam War. From the '68 Convention in Chicago to the defunding was six years. Six very long years. We had substantial majorities in both chambers, and we couldn't get it done.
I'm hoping for a declaration from the Democratic leadership that Bush has reached the end of his funding tether. This supplemental expires 10/1. The '08 Defense appropriation, as Meteor Blades points out, is probably in stone already. I don't know the burn rate of the funding, but I'll bet that the '08 money won't be enough. If we have to defund during the election campaign -- well, let's just say we'll know who is a Profile in Courage, and who is just a calculating politician.
whenever i have nothing particular to say i find myself always always plunging into cosmic philosophy or something -- archy (Don Marquis)
by mspicata on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:34:34 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
the next budget go-round, I'm still waiting for someone on the hill to start taking a hard look at the State Dept. budget. Cut out the private contractors, and the men and materiel support for this war collapses.
by zashvil on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:39:44 AM PDT
Logistics--which basically supports the troops and in turn the war effort--is handled by the Defense Department under LOGCAP III.
It's not handled by contracts under State or USAID.
by susie dow on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:22:42 PM PDT
Small rallies in 1964, on the order of hundreds of people. `65 had numerous teach-ins, in April SNCC lead a march in DC with 25,000 people with protests later that year pulling 100,000. At that time about a quarter of the US thought the war was a bad idea or not going well. In November 25,000 protesters surrounded the White House, and LBJ escalated the troop commitment from 120,000 to 400,000.
And it grew from there. People were beaten, people went to jail. Protests became larger, numbering in the hundreds of thousands of people. Kept right on going for the next two and a half years until the Battle Against the Democratic Party took place, when your time frame starts.
At that time about half the country thought Vietnam was a mistake. The GOP took over the War, and ran with it.
Never is easy, run away from it and it will follow you.
by wondering if on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:54:18 AM PDT
It was small at first. My timeline starts with the convention because that's when, IIRC, public opinion shifted away from support for the war.
My point, as you know, is that we've only just reached that point. There's a lot to do yet, and since Bush threw out his copy of the Iraq Study Group findings last December, it's been clear to me that this would be a long slog.
by mspicata on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:11:44 AM PDT
The funding can be cut off by a minority of 40 Senaotrs, so that "we don't have the votes to override a veto" crap is just that, CRAP!
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities.
- Albert Einstein
by Walt starr on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:06:05 AM PDT
or even a bill, if you are willing to just leave the troops there. Is that what you are proposing?
by zashvil on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:10:52 AM PDT
the rubber spined leadership has mnade sure of that.
by Walt starr on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:13:00 AM PDT
to my previous question, though. Let's assume the Congress simply said, "no bill." What do you think would happen?
by zashvil on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:19:45 AM PDT
IT would take some time, but no money means Bush has to pull the troops out.
by Walt starr on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:21:29 AM PDT
in my view, that he will not pull them out. Rice alluded to that some time back. Let's not kid ourselves, the existing budget includes plenty of money for Bush to keep troops there. He will take to the airwaves and say, 'gosh, I have to protect amurkins from this deadly danger, I'm the decider -- so the'll have to stay there. Course, without funding its gonna be tough what with no money for humvees and body armor and bullets, but our boys will do whatever they have to, to the last man and woman, blah, blah, blah."
by zashvil on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:28:10 AM PDT
a "get out of jail" card for this all along. It's the Feed and Forage Act, which allows him to raid the budgets of other departments to fund the war.
by mspicata on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:36:41 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 23 comments