Skip to main content

Kagro has condemned those GOP appropriations members for their no vote on the supplemental funding bill. For good reason, because the individual "support the troops" amendments that they opposed showed their hands and their willingness to put politics before the troops. We've seen far too many votes for funding this war that ignored the needs of the troops, that sent them to war with inadequate training, inadequate armor, and repeat deployments that are destroying the health, morale, and strength of our troops.

But as the House leadership continues to whip for tomorrow's supplemental vote, it's becoming more and more clear that this is a vote of conscience for many. It's also becoming clear that not all "no" votes are created equal. A "no" vote on this supplemental can come from a strong, principled opposition to this president, this war, and the desire to see it end as quickly as possible.

Consider John Lewis:

"I will not and cannot vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war."

Marcy Kaptur:

"If a good piece of legislation is one that doesn’t please anybody, well maybe this is good legislation. But I walk grudgingly toward it."

Pete Stark:

Asked what he found troubling about the current legislation, Mr. Stark snapped, "What’s to like?"

These three, as do all members, have one of the toughest votes in their careers facing them. The calculus for ending the war, for the party, for the prospects of a Democratic president being elected in 2008 are weighing on every Democratic representative. In that calculus, there must remain room for members to vote their conscience, to vote "no" not out of contrariness but out of principle and the conviction that we could do better. On the flip, there are members, like Carol Shea-Porter, who firmly believe that this is the best we'll be able to get and will be casting a "yes" vote, a vote that would otherwise be out of character for them.

We should question, though, if this is the best we'll ever be able to get. It might be so in the short term, but why do we have to act definitively in the short term? The message we've been hearing over and over from the leadership is that whatever bill comes up next is going to be even weaker, but why does that have to be?

In this, I'd ask House Democrats to consider the advice of political observer Tom Edsall:

The resolution — more precisely, a set of deals intended to paper over intraparty factions — is the result of a process better suited to a highway bill than national security.... It also risks setting the Democrats up for a poisonous share of responsibility for the failure of United States foreign policy, while amplifying questions regarding Democratic competence on military matters.....

Remember: for much of the American public, the Bush administration’s mismanagement — its unwillingness to plan for the aftermath of the invasion, its misuse of intelligence data and its destruction of worldwide support — still need to be explicitly spelled out. Democrats should devote the next two years to convincing voters that accountability for the record levels of violence, calcifying sectarian divisions, and increasing numbers of daily casualties belongs to the White House — and, by proxy, to the Republican Party....

Rather than passing hurried and porous legislation, Democrats would do better to make their priority public documentation of the Republican failure in Iraq, while taking the time to finally devise a strong, smart, coherent stance on how they’ll handle terrorism, national security and the Middle East.

Keeping the fault of this war and its mismanagement firmly on GOP shoulders is critical for the party's future and for gaining support of moderate and wavering Republicans in Congress to abandon Bush and his debacle. That will take some time, time that the Democrats actually do have.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:37 PM PDT.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Shorten the Time Covered (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    selise, MO Blue, TomP, planyourday

    Make the Bushites come back for their money sooner rather than later.

    Vote the current bill DOWN.

    Lefty!!!

    "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

    by LeftyLimblog on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:40:47 PM PDT

    •  what's the rush? (6+ / 0-)

      what's the rush to fund the war/occupation for 18 months.  if this must be the compromise - then why not fund for 3 or 4 more months and use the time work to get more people on board to end the war.

      keep the conversation going - don't try to end it until just before the 2008 elections - that's just wrong.

    •  I agree... vote NO! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcmom

      this is a game... shame on Congress :(

      even if this Supplemental could pass on the House and the Senate, it would be vetoed by the POTUS. We can argue about the politics of this forever, but sooner or later the American People will notice that this was all a (political) game :( (and I think that will be sooner than later).

      There is enough money in the pipeline to bring the troops home safely. Call your representative and ask him or her to vote NO!

      BTW, I posted a poll  asking if how your representative should vote (Yes, No, Present or Not even be present for the vote). You are invited to go and vote or check it.

      Peace with Justice / Si se puede! Marcos

      by poetas on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:44:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's all a game (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        talex, expatjourno, liberaldregs, ellen

        Voting for a bill that does exactly what you want isn't a game? Of course it is, because the only purpose for voting on it would be to score political points, given the fact that, as you put so well, Bush would veto it anyway.

        The point here is to make Bush veto something that everyone but the most pro-war and most anti-war people would see as being rather reasonable.

        [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:50:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pretty high-stakes "game", I'd say. (5+ / 0-)

          I think everyone concerned would benefit greatly if our Congresscritters stopped thinking about this in those terms.  And so should we, because it's a gigantic slap in the face to every family member of an American soldier who is serving/has served in Iraq.

          They aren't pawns.  The children who were killed in that suicide car bombing weren't Monopoly pieces.  The hundreds of severely wounded young men and women struggling to recover in the appalling facilities at Walter Reed aren't Scrabble tiles.

          And this is not a game.

          Fed up with spineless Dems? Getcher Spineless Citations (PDF) here!

          by Mehitabel9 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:02:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The NO vote "game" is self-destructive as well (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ellen

            The arguments for voting Nay: a vote of conscience, waiting for a better bill and "let it hang around the Republicans' neck- we don't need to do anything", are all the flip side of an enabling sophistry that allows this atrocity of a "war" to continue. Just more staus-quo.

            There is no friggin way that the voting public who came together in desperation to elect Democratic majorities will abide continuation of this without starting to blame the Democrats equally with the Repubs. The punishment that will surely come at the polls in '08 will be harsh and lasting. You will see low turnouts, protest votes for third, fourth and fringe-party candidates, and, predictably, Republicans voted back into office by lying about how they will vote to end the war unlike the spineless and all-talk Dems.

            No more political theorizing and brinkmanship. We NEED to see some action!

            Vote Yea!

            •  If you think that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mcmom

              Waters, Lewis and the other "No" voters are playing a game, then I can only say that you don't understand them.  At all.

              Fed up with spineless Dems? Getcher Spineless Citations (PDF) here!

              by Mehitabel9 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:40:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Voting YES, fully funding the war, is NOT (0+ / 0-)

              what the voting public wanted the Democrats to do. I'd guess about 80% of the Democrats out there want us out by the end of this year. So instead we fund the occupation fully with some meaningless 'anti-warrish' bells and whistles... and that's supposed to satisfy the public?

              The public will see this as 'both sides fully support war funding'. The antiwar Democrats out there will be depressed, and will tend to be less active in '08 and turn out to vote less than they did in '06.

              If you want to see what God thinks of money, look at the people He gave a lot of it to. - Dorothy Parker

              by planyourday on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:48:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly Right! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ellen

          "The point here is to make Bush veto something that everyone but the most pro-war and most anti-war people would see as being rather reasonable." -  FleetAdmiralJ

          Bush is the one who will look foolish and stubborn here by wanting money with no accountability whatsoever.

          The people will never stand for that. If there is one thing the election did say is that people wanted accountability. Bush is on the losing end of this.

          If he cries foul on the domestic spending in the bill he will look like the corporate hack he is by taking money away from children and NOLA.

          And if we compromise and strip that money out then we should shorten the withdrawal date to come sooner than Sept. '08 as part of that compromise. Keep him on the ropes!

          We could also add some more benchmarks in there like...

          He has to quit being an asshole by late summer or we will impeach him - LOL - or something like that.

          "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

          by talex on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:06:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Pass this bill, and the war ends sooner. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque

      and I do  not mean "sooner than it would have ended without the bill".

      Sooner than the date incorporated in the bill.

      This should be obvious.

      Put any end date on the adventure, and Bush's run-out-the-clock, roll-it-into-the-out-years strategy becomes unplayable.

      If the GOP can't play that, an EARLIER exit date is better for them ... and they will find one.

      It doesn't matter that this bill gets filbustered, or filibustered, or gutted in conference, ot vetoed.

      This bill puts the handwriting on the wall: the end will come, at a date before November 2008.

      And that's "game over", though it may take a while ton roll up the capet..

      Pass the word -- "No escalation without justification!"

      by RonK Seattle on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:08:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  FWIW (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ellen

      A week or so ago Moveon polled the membership. The results were:

      84.6% of MoveOn members voted to support the bill. 9.2% said they weren't sure and 6.2% voted to oppose it.

      Moveon leadership was clearly overridden by it's membership on this one and IMO clear thinking  prevailed.

      Remember the House bill does not stand alone. There must be a "passable" Senate Bill crafted also.

      So it does not good to craft a tougher House bill as Tom Edsall is quoted in the diary as wanting when the one they already have is going to be tough enough to pass in the Senate as it is.

      BTW The Senate Appropriations Committee just passed a funding bill that would require the troops to be out of Iraq in four month. But if you remember a similar bill just got voted down by the full Senate just last week.

      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

      by talex on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:47:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a game of Chicken (6+ / 0-)

    And the Dems are blinking first.

    Better the Dems hang together with the Progressive core and lose a vote to the Republicans + Blue Dogs.  Let THEM propose a bill they can defend.  It won't pass either.

    When the negotiating resumes, the Progressives will have preserved their position, and could actually get a stronger bill.

    •  This isn't about a stronger vs. weaker (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Diana Rowe Pauls, Major Danby, ellen

      or who has the better position.  This is about getting a bill - any bill - passed. period.

      [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:14:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well said and agree! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ellen

        I diaried on this as two Indiana Democratic Freshmen are on the fence.  "Hoosiers Vexxing Dems" is the title of the Indianapolis Star Piece.

        My diary
        Two Out of Three is BAD When Trying to Stop a War

        Give Congressman Donnelly and Congressman Ellsworth a call or an email and urge them to vote yes on this bill.

        Representative Brad Bradley (Brad) Ellsworth (D - 08)  202-225-4636 202-225-3284 http://ellsworth.house.gov/

        Representative Joe Donnelly (D - 02)  202-225-3915 202-225-6798 http://donnelly.house.gov/

        Hold the Democrats feet to the fire, but don't burn them at the stake....just yet.

        by Barry Welsh on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:26:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But downthread (7+ / 0-)

        several people say Bush is gonna veto it.

        I can think of two ways of weighing the value of the current bill.

        (1) We like it because it clearly distinguishes the Democrats from the Republicans.

        No, it doesn't.  Progressive Dems will vote against it.  Conservative Repubs will vote against it.  There is no demarcation here.  No point is being made about the two parties.

        (2) We like it because it sets a deadline.

        I'm willing to be convinced.  But that's gonna take a lot of convincing.  Three Friedman Units and suddenly the occupation is "illegal"?  Is that the idea?  

        "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

        by LithiumCola on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:28:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well (0+ / 0-)

          I think every bill that congresses passes that does anything past "here's more money!" will get vetoed, so I'm a Bush veto as a given.  However, Congress can make a statement by just passing something too.

          In a sense, I see progressive resistance to this bill to be, well, I don't fully understand it because Bush is almost certain to veto it (I understand their concern, but their concern only come to fruition, really, if it actually becomes law)

          I stronger bill would be nice, but you don't even get the statement if it doesn't even pass the House.

          [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:31:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So we should (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mehitabel9, TomP

            ask progressive Dems to vote for it, thus making (1) in my comment, active?

            So the bill clearly distinguishes between the two parties, that is to say?

            "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

            by LithiumCola on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:35:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not sure (0+ / 0-)

              if having progressive voting against it will make making a statement invalid, since if it still passes, then no more than 15 or so dems would have voted against it (assuming no republican votes for it).  I'm not sure that's enough to nullify the point.

              But yes, it would help make the point that much more stronger if they voted for it.

              [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:38:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The more progressive voting for it (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Geekesque, LithiumCola

              the less we have to compromise with the retrogressive elements of the party to get a majority to pass it.  That's why they should vote for it.

              My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

              by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:39:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So Bush has got us in a place (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mehitabel9, mcmom

                where we are seriously debating, on DailyKos, how vigorously to support the surge.

                The calculation is that Bush will veto a bill that supports the surge but not sufficiently enthusiastically.

                Sheesh.

                "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

                by LithiumCola on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:42:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We're not vigorously supporting the surge (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LithiumCola

                  We're using legislation that Bush wants as leverage to end the war, and we're setting up the failure to fund at all as being his fault if he won't sign a bill that gives him what he wants under his conditions.  The public will be shocked -- not in the Casablanca sense, but actually shocked -- if we cut off funding, and the right wing of the Democratic caucus will be complaining about the Dem Leadership's actions if they're not pretty reasonable for now.  This is setting up for that Gotterdammurung.

                  My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                  by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:45:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Provided Bush vetoes it. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mehitabel9, Major Danby

                    It seems like you think we have Bush in a zugzwang.  He can't veto the bill and he can't not veto the bill.

                    "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

                    by LithiumCola on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:50:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think that that's the plan (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LithiumCola

                      I think that they also may realize that Bush does have a way out -- by, essentially, welshing on the deal.  (Is there a term for that that doesn't insult Welshmen?  Sorry.)  If he issues a signing statement that says he can do whatever he wants, etc., then the Democrats can be shocked, shocked at his betrayal.  It doesn't really matter if they're actually shocked.  The behavior itself is shocking, and I think the public will be shocked at it, and I think it helps make the GOP own the war and make Bush radioactive to 2008 candidates.

                      Now that I think of it, what I'd add to the bill is a clause rendering any signing statement attached to it inoperative.  That would tighten the cuffs on Bush.

                      My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                      by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:00:44 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Do you mind if I quote (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Major Danby

                        this comment, MD?  I think you summed up the whole debate right there.  How do we respond after Bush welshes.  That's really where this is all going.

                        "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

                        by LithiumCola on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:29:34 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Yep. (0+ / 0-)

                  It's the latest stopping point in our long, ignominious failure to end the war.

                  Fed up with spineless Dems? Getcher Spineless Citations (PDF) here!

                  by Mehitabel9 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:04:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  statement (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mimir, mcmom, MO Blue, Autarkh

            You make a statement by presenting a bill to actually end this damn war and having all the Republicans and a handfull of "blue dogs" vote it down. You make a statement by continually making it clear that there will be NO money for this war without meaningful restrictions, without realistic progress assesments that cannot be bypassed. You make a statement that says not one more dime for this debalce until there is a clear plan for an end to it with a real timeline, and you stick to it.
            By passing this against the strongly expressed wishes of the public to end the war, this bill which actually does virtually nothing to end the war before Bush's term ends anyway, which endorses sending undertrained, under equipped troops into battle, which does not require Bush to go to Congress to start a new war with Iran you are making a statement all right. You are stating that the Democrats are not the anti-war party after all, and all those who voted Democratic to end the war were duped.

            •  And then what? (0+ / 0-)

              Unless you'll willing to pass no appropriation at all -- a choice that would fracture the Democratic caucus -- then eventually you let a naked funding bill go through after you've made your symbolic statement.  That's what Obey predicted.  I believe him.

              Excuse me, does the bill contain a timeline?  Maybe Bush can wriggle out of it, but I think that this is a mischaracterization.

              You do understand that we're not going to get all of the good things that you and I would like in the bill, right?

              My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

              by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:03:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  We like it because Bush is going to veto it (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cowalker, LithiumCola, davewill

          I have a half-finished diary that may not see the light of day due to other time demands, but that's pretty much it for me.  If Bush caved and accepted it as is, it would be a problem, but one that could be addressed with further legislation to hone in on the differences between him and us.  But he'll probably veto it.  The more "reasonable" (meaning compromise-oriented) it is, the worse he will look, the harder that veto will be to defend, and the better positioned Dems will be when we hit the inevitable impasse.  I think that that's what's going on.

          This analysis looks better when it's 80 times as long, of course....  ;7)

          My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

          by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:38:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gotcha. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mehitabel9, TomP, davewill

            I hope you get the diary out if you have time.

            On this topic I find myself bamboozled.

            "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

            by LithiumCola on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:40:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  well, and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LithiumCola

            a "reasonable" bill appears to be necessary for it to be passed, at least for the time being.

            I wrote a diary not too long ago (i think it was my last one) where I basically wrote that the dems needed time.  The best case for getting out soon was to pressure republicans (and blue dogs) to come over to our side.  I don't think that can occur without bills like this, at least for the time being.

            [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:42:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The most favorable gloss I can give (0+ / 0-)

              on what the Blue Dogs are doing is that when we finally do end up playing chicken with Bush on troop funding, they want to make sure that the public blames him rather than them when nothing is enacted.  It's a realistic concern and a legitimate interest.  I don't know if it's what is really driving them, but if it is then they're going to come around eventually.  We'll see.

              My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

              by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:47:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ok, how about HOT POTATO? (0+ / 0-)

                Why not let the Democratic bill die, and see what the Republicans + Blue Dogs can assemble instead?  

                That puts the Republicans and Blue Dogs on record as going against the majority of the American people if they DON'T put in meaningful checks on the President.  I'm not sure they can pass a bill - because it's not in their interest to pass a Republican bill.  

                It IS in the interest of Republicans to see a Democratic bill pass, with Republican language.  That way we own the war, too.

                I agree with fat old man.  It is in Bush's interest to sign a Democratic bill.  So why not try to make better law?

                •  There's no mystery as to what they'd pass: (0+ / 0-)

                  an unconditional appropriation.  Now Pelosi could try to kill it in committee, I assume, but that will rip the hell out of the caucus.

                  By the way, everyone should read David Sirota's diary from yesterday on this issue.  It's as clear a statement of the politics at hand as I've seen.

                  My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                  by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:00:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Note the difference (0+ / 0-)

                    David wrote yesterday that if the current bill doesn't pass, Pelosi might be "panicked" into an unconditional appropriation.  Not sure he saw the distinction between a Republican bill and a Democratic bill.  I think David just assumed that Pelosi and Emmanuel would want to have a Democratic bill to continue funding.  That's just wrong.

                    Better to let the Republicans advance their own alternative, and defend the need to continue funding the war ad infinitum.  Make the Republicans work for their bill, and see how many Blue Dogs get cold feet.  

                    Nothing would pass, and the Blue Dogs would be weakened in their ability to continue opposing the more progressive alternatives.

                    •  How does that work with (0+ / 0-)

                      the present committee structure?  We can't shrug and hand over the gavel.

                      My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                      by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:47:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Murtha unreasonable? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              peraspera, mcmom, davewill

              So requiring proper training and equipment is unreasonable? Requiring Bush to get Congressional approval to start a war with Iran is unreasonable?
              The way to get Republicans to join us is to keep the pressure on them. The public is soldly against this war and getting more so everyday.
              Bush needs the money, Congress has it to give. If the Republicans want to fund the war they have to bend, it's called negotiating from strength. What you are proposing is to fold when we have the strong hand.

              •  the fact that this bill may be seen as reasonable (0+ / 0-)

                doesn't mean that all other bills are unreasonable.

                [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

                by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:53:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I agree that not voting on Murtha II (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                davewill

                really cheeses me off.  I hope that it's part of a reasonable strategy.  Look, at some point you have to trust the coach on things like that.  I think we're at that point.

                My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:56:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  The key is separating Bush from the Repub herd. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Major Danby

            Make that SOB truly radioactive so that they won't stand by him.

          •  He might try to wiggle out (0+ / 0-)

            with a signing statement. Claim that congress can't tell him how to fight the war.

            Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.

            by davewill on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:46:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But signing the bill (0+ / 0-)

              is basically a public agreement that congress can tell him how to fight the war.  He won't do that.

              [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:47:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  He may refuse to honor the conditions set (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              davewill

              And then if the courts won't intervene, we will have to impeach over it.  That should make it pretty clear to the public who does and doesn't own the war.

              My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

              by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:48:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And they are most unlikely to intervene. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Major Danby

                This looks like the classic situation where the Supreme Court woudl consider the matter unjusticable. That it is a political problem that needs a political answer. That would be the signal to Congress that impeachment is the only recourse.

                Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.

                by davewill on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:58:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Bush won't veto (0+ / 0-)

            It's not like he hasn't threatend to veto bills before then relented when he realized that was all he'd get. He is getting all he wants in this bill, the end date is meaningless, there are no training requirements, he will sign it to get his money and then do what he wants. It's a bluff, and it's working.
            If the Democrats want to end the war then why not vote to end the war? The blue dogs? Make them stand up and vote in favor of the war, make them give their support to Bush by voting against training and equipment. I'm betting most will look at the polls and back down and if they don't they will be replaced

            •  I think that's too optimistic (0+ / 0-)

              There's probably a majority in the House -- GOP + Blue Dogs -- for a naked supplemental funding bill.  It's hard for Pelosi to navigate around that.  The Blue Dogs, seriously, do not think that they're going to be replaced for this.  They're much more afraid of the claim that their cutting off funding is what lost the war.

              So while I would like the bill to be much better, and I think that Dems should require votes on all of those things as well, I don't agree that it's all meaningless.  Even if I did, I wouldn't say so, because "the Dems knew it was meaningless when they passed it" is going to be the GOP talking point if and when Bush reneges, not ours.  Our position is that if Bush puts his honor on the line when he says the troops are equipped, etc., he gets some money.  Stupid, yes, but not a good GOP talking point.

              My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

              by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:54:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  W can veto... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Night Owl, fat old man, TomP

          but then he's still got to find the $$$ somewhere to keep his vanity war going.  It has to come from  the Defense budget.  

          He has the same problem if no supplemental bill passes.  

  •  Get People ON THE RECORD For Support Of The War (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Night Owl, fat old man

    The best thing to do even though it's painful is to keep introducing war-ending legislation.  Then let the GOOPER's and the BlueDogz vote it down.  They will bury themselves.

    If we don't do this, we will lose our slim majority in Congress.  The American people have spoken and we have to try to accommodate their wishes.  That is - we have to TRY, even if we fail.  And KEEP TRYING.

    Ned Lamont for US House of Representatives (CT-04) in 2008

    by bincbom on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:43:42 PM PDT

    •  What good does it do (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Night Owl, TomP

      to point out that Republicans voted against a bill that progessive Dems voted against too?

      You want to try making that distinction in a sound bite?

      "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

      by LithiumCola on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:14:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely the problem with this bill. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peraspera, LithiumCola, Autarkh

        It attempts to accomodate to pro-war interests at the expense of a forthright stance in opposition.   The result is that we are unable to use a vote on this measure to draw a distinction between Dems and the GOP/Blue Dogs.

        As bincbom rightly observes, a clean bill in favor of withdrawl would show voters that Dems are squarely on their side.

        Would it pass? Probably not the first time. But at least we could honestly claim to the voters that we are trying to end this debacle, which then helps us put a lot more pressure on pro-war forces to deal the next time it comes up.

        As things stand now, not only are wel stuck with a bill that probably won't pass, but defeat won't help us in the next round.

        A lose/lose deal IMO.

  •  I don't think Dems have time (8+ / 0-)

    Time = more loss of life

  •  Lewis is the closest to a saint Congress has. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    selise, eugene, wildcat6, TomP, planyourday

    And I've known GoOPers to admit as much.  Good for him.

    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."-GWB

    by BTP on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:47:15 PM PDT

    •  Lewis is a personal hero of mine, BUT ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... acting on principle, he sank the original Clinton crime bill (full of carrots). That rejection begat the compromise crime bill (full of sticks) ... and the impression of Clinton as a "failed President" ... and the Gingrich Revolution ... and 12 years in the wilderness.

      Clinton understood, and knew he could not prevail on Lewis to do otherwise.

      But god help us, I hope there are enough angels in the outfield to make up for JL's principled opposition.

      Pass the word -- "No escalation without justification!"

      by RonK Seattle on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:18:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What gets the troops home quicker? (6+ / 0-)

    Remember, the Republicans won't vote for a "cut and run" bill as was used to end the Vietnam War.  And we need them to override a Bush veto.

    Our choices are as follows:

    1. Back this bill, which has a fighting chance of getting enough votes to override a Bush veto (and thus starts to bring the troops home), or:
    1. Spend the next two years sending Bush "perfect" bills that he can safely veto knowing that no Republican will vote to override his veto.

    Guess which option gets the troops home quicker?

    •  Neither probably. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LithiumCola, planyourday

      That's the weird thing about this whole process.  We are compromising our principles in order to pass a bill that gets filibustered in the Senate and if, by devine intervention, it got out of the senate, it will get vetoed.  

      "We don't need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party." John Edwards 2/22/07

      by TomP on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:54:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  not a snowalls chance (0+ / 0-)

      In hell that this will draw enough Repub votes to survive a veto. Add that to the fact that nothing even this good will get through the Senate and what you have is the Demcrats, after winning almost entirely based on the publics opposition to the war, giving Bush everything he wants. No deal.

    •  The choice is progress or paralysis. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fredly

      I cannot emphasize enough that motivation doesn't mean jack shit when the votes are counted.

    •  Phoenix, it's a small, small internet. (0+ / 0-)

      About an hour ago I had googled myself to the far-reaches of the tubes that linked me back to Wonkette and the picture of this woman kissing Bush.  So I end up in the MN media reading about this Bachmann.  I gotta go back and finish the article at your link.  She's exactly what I had suspected she was when I was wondering how I could have not known about this woman.  She's right at the core of the Rightist coup operatives.  They've worked hard and long and I hear the conversations that they have created come out of the mouths of even folks who always vote Democratic.  Thanks for the link.

      "Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

      by tribalecho on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:54:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Since we are divided here (4+ / 0-)

    how can we expect our representatives to be otherwise?

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:49:59 PM PDT

    •  Probably Best Comment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque, lgmcp

      If this even this bill doesn't pass, then no bill gets passed in this congress other than a bill to fund.

      [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:18:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  why so willing to cave in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Night Owl

        Whay are you so willing to cave on this? The Democrats were elected largely on their opposition to the war. Bush needs the money, Congress has it to give out. We are in the strong position, it is up to the Republicans to bend not us. If this doesn't pass, then the Democrats comeback with another one , and another one, and another one, all demanding meaningful training requirements, all requiring that a real plan to get us out be implemented. The public, who has stated clearly that they don't want this war anymore and don't trust this president will supply the pressure on the Republicans and they will be the ones to cave in, not us. Why does it always have to be us who give in even when we have the good hand? someone please explain that to me.

  •  I agree with you on this mcjoan. (0+ / 0-)

    I will bring a snip of John Lewis' statement.  It is so powerful.

    "We don't need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party." John Edwards 2/22/07

    by TomP on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:50:00 PM PDT

    •  John Lewis. (6+ / 0-)

      On Monday night:

      "As a nation, can we hear the words of Gandhi, so simple, so true--that it's either non-violence or non-existence? Can we hear the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. that we must learn to live together as brothers and sisters or perish as fools? Tonight I must make it plain and clear, that as a human being, as a citizen of the world, as a citizen of America, as a member of Congress, and as an individual committed to a world at peace with itself, I will not and cannot vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war."  

      "We don't need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party." John Edwards 2/22/07

      by TomP on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:51:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I cannot condemn (6+ / 0-)

    those who vote "no" as a vote of conscience -- hell, I'd be doing the same thing, so I can only offer them my deepest respect.

    It's really starting to bug me that some people are equating these (for lack of a better term) 'conscientious objectors' with the Republicans who oppose the bill for entirely different, and bad and wrong, reasons.  That's just shitty and I wish those who are doing it would knock it the hell off.

    Fed up with spineless Dems? Getcher Spineless Citations (PDF) here!

    by Mehitabel9 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:50:08 PM PDT

    •  I certaintly don't equate them (0+ / 0-)

      but I also think that we all have to be responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions.  If they need either Maxine Waters or Ellen Tauscher to be able to pass the bill, they either pass a more progressive bill with Waters or a less progressive bill with Tauscher.  That's the actual choice to be made.  I think it's awful that Waters is in a position where she may have to choose between her being personally sullied and seeing a better bill or personally unsullied and seeing a worse one, but that is the understood hazard of the line of work she entered.

      An interesting philosophical question is whether one would go from heaven to hell to allow two worthy people to go from hell to heaven.  I'm not trying to get into heaven.

      My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

      by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:56:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't stand it anymore. I give up. (0+ / 0-)

        Maxine Waters and her progressive colleagues are doing the very thing we've been begging all of the Democrats to do: grow a spine.  And now they are getting pressured from pretty much all sides to abandon their principles in favor of -- what, exactly?  What tangible good is going to come out of this miserable shitpile of a bill?  

        Will someone please outline the concrete positive outcomes that are guaranteed to come out of this, using simple words and bullet points?  Because I. Don't. Get. It.  It seems all I hear and all I read is "it's a good first step and the next one will be better."  Well, prove it, because I don't believe y'all anymore.

        I completely understand Maxine Waters' heartbreak, because I share it today.  My country is lost.

        Fed up with spineless Dems? Getcher Spineless Citations (PDF) here!

        by Mehitabel9 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:20:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, you do NOT give up. Don't pretend you do. (0+ / 0-)

          This is a damn hard argument, with right on both sides, as most of us recognize.

          I don't think that George Miller and David Obey et al. are lacking in spine.  But eventually, you have to figure out what is the best position you can obtain.  On some issues -- torture, Roe -- I will go down with the ship.  But this is really a decision about whether the war ends in 2008 or 2009.  Many people will die unnecessarily due to Bush and the country will be harmed, but the question of whether or not to be sullied by voting for this bill is not one that calls for an absolute refusal to negotiate.  It calls for fierce advocacy, but ultimately for delivering results.  Read Sirota's diary from yesterday (to which MissLaura linked in her FP post.)

          My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

          by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:46:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know how to fight in a world (0+ / 0-)

            where principle, and doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do, count for nothing.  It's not a world I belong in.

            Fed up with spineless Dems? Getcher Spineless Citations (PDF) here!

            by Mehitabel9 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:05:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Doing the "right thing" in this case (0+ / 0-)

              means that an unconditional appropriations bill is likely to pass or there will be tremendous damage to the Democratic Party.  If that were not the case, I would not be on this side of the argument.  And that is why I put "right thing" in quotes above.

              My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

              by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:53:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Right on! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, Geekesque, LithiumCola

    I'll say it again: "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time."

  •  This is the price of Milquetoast legislation. (2+ / 0-)

    Playing politics places your team members between the rock of voting for a half-assed attempt to end the war and the hard place of voting their consciences.

    Time's fun when you're having flies. - Kermit the Frog

    by Five of Diamonds on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:50:37 PM PDT

  •  The core thing that I despise is... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arbiter, planyourday

    the deliberate politicization of a United States Soldier.

    Although close, It's not a game of chicken. It's a hostage scenario.

    "Let's put a shoe in there!" ~ Haywood Nelson

    by nowheredesign on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:50:44 PM PDT

  •  We can't keep killing troops just to prove (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mehitabel9

    that they were wrong.  From a dispassionate, purely political standpoint, we must find a way to keep the blame on the GOP and still bring them all home, or to safety, or to safer, better equipped, and more well-rested combat.

    We cannot settle for "this is the best we can do" as long as men and women are dying for mistakes - whoever the mistakes belonged to.

    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Salvor Hardin

    by TexasAMC on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:51:00 PM PDT

  •  Simple analogy, maybe too simple, but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    2lucky, Mehitabel9

    Just suppose you just lost your job and all you had between you and that next job was your last $1,000, to pay your bills and survive, etc.  You get the picture?  Would you trust Bush with that money?  There is NOTHING, absolutely nothing that the congress can do to make him stick by the terms of this bill.  Small prediction.  He won't veto.  He will just do signing statements, call in more of our troops and......wait for it....Stay the freakin' course.

    •  he has to veto (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque

      or else he's implicitly agreeing that the Congress has the ability and right to constrain him militarily, even if he ignores the law otherwise.

      [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:19:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  nonsense (2+ / 0-)

        So September comes along and the "deadline" hits but there is a crisis and Bush gets up and demands that we give another supplemental to fund for a while longer (we're already almost at the end of his term anyway). Tell me why he shouldn't expect them to cave in once again and vote him the money? This time the justification will be that Bush can keep them there into '09 with other DD money anyway, and the Dem president will surely get us out so we don't want to be seen not supporting the troops by not giving the money.
        This bill does nothing, absolutely nohing to end this war sooner.
        The so called timeline is meaningless, and once he has the money we have no power, zero, nothing to hold over him.

        •  That's right, we have power of the purse (0+ / 0-)

          Basic civics books need to be read. If the Democratic Congress gives up its one power over the Executive branch, that's it. 'Game' over, Bush gets his war till he leaves office.

          If you want to see what God thinks of money, look at the people He gave a lot of it to. - Dorothy Parker

          by planyourday on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:24:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  no longer support (4+ / 0-)

    I was never a fan of this bill, but I was willing to support it for a while. However it has become so watered down that I can no longer get behind it now. It will do precisely nothing to stop the war. The so called timeline is easily bypassed, and they even removed the provision calling for Bush to get Congressional approval before attacking Iran. This gives Bush all he wants. All the money and a time limit that means nothing. If the "blue dogs" think their districts are behind Bush and the war, then damn well make them stand up and say so loud and clear by voting against sufficient training and equipment and by putting no meaningful restrictions on Bush, and then we will replace them all next time around.
    The public is clearly against this war, if the Democrats wish to retain or expand their majority they need to be too, this bill isn't.

  •  Cart Before Horse (0+ / 0-)

    Too often Dems think 'the public' must be with us becasue a, b and c. They jump the gun and go right to remedies.  As a result, Dems look opportunistic. Instead of demonstrating real leadership, the public sees an angry mob bent on revenge for perceived GOP misdeeds. Better to serve through example and shame the GOP into submission. Make them vote vote vote if they want to continue this disasterous war. Incrementally rachet up the pressure until it's done and the troops are home.

    I agree - spend some time (not too much with lives in the balance) explaining what went wrong; but good golly, someone get out there and say the Dems have a strategy for the Middle East. The sooner this goes from a blanket condemnation that Dems are against the war (opposition) to a more nuanced message about how the Dem strategy can stabilize the region and address the risks (leadership), the sooner 'the public' will be shoulder to shoulder with the Dems.

    "What's in the name of lord [governor], that I should fear; To bring my grievance to the public ear?" - The Crisis, January 13, 1777

    by TPaine on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:55:59 PM PDT

  •  I do not support this bill (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Night Owl

    And I am hoping my Congressman, Jim McDermott, does the right thing and stands with John Lewis, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and Barbara Lee in voting against this half-measure. We were sabotaged on this by the Bush Democrats. I see no reason to cave in to them. We must stand strong on this.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:56:57 PM PDT

  •  need more with Lewis' convictions (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Night Owl, Mehitabel9, arbiter, TomP

    "I will not and cannot vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war."

    Exactly on point.  A no vote is not abandoning the troops, it is supporting them.  There is no military solution and so continuing on a military strategy without pursuing a political end is a waste of lives.

    In one sense the Republicans have it right; if you are against the war you should note vote to fund it - this is hypocritical.  You should vote to end it nd if the administration refuses to do so you should not create "soft" resolutions.

    Congress needs to take a stand.  If they can't muster the votes to end the war, they should fail trying.  That is the courage of their convictions that the American people are looking for and feel that much of the Democratic Congressman lack.

    Now we just need to explain to the American people that a "no" on additional funds does not meant the troops are abandoned in the field tomorrow with no weapons or food.  It means the war strategy gets starved and an orderly withdrawal is forced.  If Bush refuses to begin that withdrawal then the military leadership will force him to because they will not allow him to risk having troops int he field when the money runs out.  They are all ready at then end of their rope with Bush.

     

  •  Edsall's piece is horrible (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bigchin

    It's all based in political calculation. How can Democrats take a stand that makes them seem stronger, that scores points over the Republicans, that maneuvers them towards more power.

    Tom: that's not what it's about. The joy and pain of being in a position to govern is that you must...govern. I'm not looking to Congress to make more moves in their political chess game. Now is the time to actually, you know, Do Something that hastens the end of the war, brings the troops home safely and rewards them, starts to mend our reputation in the world. And that means being specific, taking action that actually has a concrete end in mind and, yes, potentially being politically vulnerable.

    A clear conscience requires it.

    •  yes. see my post below. Edsall's final (0+ / 0-)

      paragraph.

      "...history is a tragedy not a melodrama" - I.F. Stone

      by bigchin on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:08:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It underscores my point (0+ / 0-)

        Certainly a slower more considered approach would give the Democrats a chance to demonstrate to voters that they take seriously the threat of terrorism...

        Dammit, this is not about demonstrating things to voters! So what happens if we do demonstrate to them - should they then vote us in office so that we can demonstrate still more things to them?

        This is about three more soldiers who, today, weren't the last to die for a mistake. And three more tomorrow who also won't be the last. It's about actually taking action, not a campaign commercial!

        Sorry, was I shouting? I'll try to carve out time for a Times LTE.

        •  Everything (0+ / 0-)

          is demonstration.  A bill pro-actively ending the war will not become law before 2009 until and unless a significant number of republicans turn to our side.  That will take time to occur, if it ever does.

          [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:55:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Grow up, people (4+ / 0-)

    We all know full well that if this bill is voted down another bill will be passed, one without any restrictions.  What we must do now is pass a bill that ends the war in 2008 and get every Republican member of Congress on record as voting against it.

    Idiot liberals, indeed.

    •  No end (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      This bill will not end the war in '08, is has no teeth whatever. We will be giving Bush the rest of his term to do whatever he wants. If we are not going to actually vote to bring the troops home or actually place real restrictions on Bush then what exactly is gained?

      •  and a bill with teeth (0+ / 0-)

        will just get voted down by the blue dogs, so you're no better off bringing that op either.

        This is an exercise in getting something passed, and it is a balancing act. It has to be moderate enough to get the blue dogs on board, but aggressive enough to get the progressive caucus on board.

        As we see here, the best thing to say to that goal is "good luck with that"

        [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:22:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A Democratic victory in 2008 (0+ / 0-)

        And withdrawal in 2009.  As anyone with an ounce of sense knows, we will not be withdrawing before Jan. 20, 2009, and the only way to withdraw after that date is to win the 2008 Presidential election.

        But by all means, let's shitcan this bill.  Let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Yippee.  I hope any Democrats who vote against this bill are stripped of their leadership positions and committee assignments by Speaker Pelosi.

        •  I hope (0+ / 0-)

          republicans will come to their senses before than and join democrats in voting for redeployment probably sometime in late 2008, which is the earliest I can see such an event occurring.

          If they don't, unfortunately you're right, it'll have to wait for the next president, realistically.

          [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:28:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "Idiot Liberals" (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah right.

      We don't 'all know full well' another bill will be passed without restrictions.

      If you can't get progressive members to vote for this one what makes you think an even weaker bill will get the required Dems on board?

      •  The Blue Dogs would vote with the (0+ / 0-)

        Republicans.  

        •  How does that bill get to the floor... (0+ / 0-)

          without Pelosi losing her Speakership?

          •  Gets voted out of Committee. (0+ / 0-)

            Having this bill get defeated would be a disaster on many fronts.

            I know if I were a Republican, I'd be salivating at the prospect of this bill going down to defeat because of leftwing Democratic defections.

            •  No need to panic (0+ / 0-)

              First, no Dem chairman will let a vote out of committee that doesn't do what the leadership wants.

              Second, what disaster? The result of defeat is that Bush doesn't get the money he wants to continue the war, an outcome popular not only within the caucus but more importantly with the voters.

              Time is on our side here. What's the rush?

              •  Defunding the war is NOT popular (0+ / 0-)

                in the caucus or with voters in general.

                Step outside the echo chamber.

                •  Then I must be looking at the wrong polls... (0+ / 0-)

                  or in the wrong party

                  or both.

                  •  I'm guessing you're misreading (0+ / 0-)

                    the polls that are out there.

                    The Senate voted 86-12 disapproving of defunding.

                    •  Senate is not the House (0+ / 0-)

                      nor is that vote indicative of the mood of the electorate.

                      Besides, there is a big difference between voting for defunding and simply letting it happen.

                      I repeat my question, why should Dems be in a hurry to fund Bush's war?

                      What's the rush?

                      •  the rush is for the troops (0+ / 0-)

                        look here and you'll understand the "rush". Every day that goes by, another mother screams, another father cries, another widow must remain strong so she can comfort her children.

                        This is more than budget and ego... these are Americans who are dying every day while these people play games with each other.

                        •  ? (0+ / 0-)

                          Why should we rush to fund even more US troops and Iraqis death?

                          I don't understand your point.

                          •  I'm trying to be realistic (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Night Owl

                            In my fantasy, we'd load them all up on trains, planes, and automobiles and get them out of there ASAP.  Realistically, that isn't going to happen.  Although the majority of Americans want the war to be over now, most realize that pulling out tomorrow isn't the best option.  (I do not agree but that is what I hear.)  In order to have some sort of compromise (this "give Bush a chance, have patience, bullshit" like WTF have we been DOING for four years...?) while still sticking to some type of end-date is better than nothing.

                            And as much as I believe that the troops have been isolated from most of the information we have, I think many still believe in whatever the hell the mission is supposed to be.  Pulling them out tomorrow or continuing to play political chess with their jobs/mission/lives will further alienate them from the Democratic party.

                            Bush is a child.  When we want our children to do something, at some point we must tell them when they need to have it done by.  

                            Basically, we have to play the hand we're dealt and just commit to a plan rather than keep staring at the deck.

                            That's just my opinion.

                          •  Our hand is better than you think... (0+ / 0-)

                            but it needs to be played patiently and skillfully.

                          •  fantasy vs reality (0+ / 0-)

                            In my fantasy, we'd load them all on planes, trains, and automobiles and get them home ASAP.

                            In the real world I'm forced to live in, I have to acknowledge that isn't going to happen.  Many Americans do not support the immediate pull-out-- we can't confuse the recent election and negative opinions about the situation in Iraq with the desire for immediate withdrawal.  In addition, we have many Americans who are still stupidly believing that "Give Bush a chance, have patience" bullshit--like what have we been DOING for five years??

                            YES, many of us want it done YESTERDAY... but many others want it handled better/differently etc. than it has been so the mission (whatever it is) is successful.

                            In addition, many of the troops (many of whom do not have access to the same information we have, and/or they HAVE to psychologically believe in the "mission") would greatly resent it if we pulled them out unilaterally.  The damage to any future relationships between the military and the Democratic party would take generations to repair (as if our relationship is that healthy anyway).  If the field generals start saying "pull out now", then we'd be okay, but for some reason, they aren't saying that.

                            My point is that we have to deal the hand we're dealt and stop staring at the deck.  The troops deserve better than to have Americans sitting on our fat butts stateside bickering and having a power struggle over whose plan is better than whose, while they die every day.

                          •  well, I don't know what happened! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Night Owl

                            My post disappeared when I tried to submit it the first time so I had to write it again...and now both are there.  SORRY!

  •  I'm just gonna keep quoting this poll, (5+ / 0-)

    This is all that matters.

    an ABC/USA Today/BBC/ADR poll March 2007.

    Now

    51% of Iraqis say violence against US forces is acceptable.

    78% of Iraqis oppose presence of US forces.

    Feb. 2004

    17% of Iraqis say violence against US forces is acceptable.

    51% of Iraqis oppose presence of US forces.

    The numbers are getting worse, not better.

    I am at a loss for how to make this point more clearly: no good can come from our presence in Iraq.

    We are sending our men and women into a country of about 24 million people, slightly more than 12 million of whom think it is acceptable to kill our troops to prove no help is wanted.

    "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

    by LithiumCola on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:04:11 PM PDT

    •  It the Iraqi's held a vote on when THEY would (0+ / 0-)

      like the US occupation to end what do you think the results would be? Why don't the Dems write that into the legislation? If they want us to stay they would have to meet benchmarks and if not...Either way the results provide political cover for both parties. Since we opened the Pandora's box we should at least hear what the Iraqi people have to say.

  •  You might have included Edsall's final (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LithiumCola, Major Danby

    paragraph:

    Certainly a slower more considered approach would give the Democrats a chance to demonstrate to voters that they take seriously the threat of terrorism - that whatever Iraq policy the party adopts, it is based on recognition of this grave danger, and not on a helter-skeletr rush to quiet demands from its influential antiwar wing.

    So, a vast majority of Americans (those opposed to the war) are but a "wing" and it is in THAT wing, not , say, the GOP, where the problem lies. Hell, apparently he couldn't resist the subtle reference to... Charles Manson (we're all loons!!!) Nevermind that he premises the argument on the "fact" of a "global terror" that we should be very very afraid of...

    not me, damn it.  I will not succumb to the hysteria and the fear mongering.

    Edsall, ultimately, does not make your case, imho.

    "...history is a tragedy not a melodrama" - I.F. Stone

    by bigchin on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:06:05 PM PDT

    •  And of course Iraq is the central front in (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bigchin, TomP

      war on terror.  In fact, now that I think of it, Baghdad is the central front in the war on terror.

      In fact, now that I think of it, Haifa Street is the central front in the war on terror.

      We lose Haifa street, little Suzy lives in fear.

      "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

      by LithiumCola on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:09:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "No" votes aren't created equally, but they (0+ / 0-)

    sure as hell wind up that way.

    Defeating this bill means paralysis and that Congress doesn't do  ANYTHING to stop the war.

    Sorry, but blaming the Blue Dogs ain't gonna cut it anymore.  

  •  What they should do is offer an amendment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque

    which allows congress to override the certification by passing a disapproval resolution.

    Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:12:30 PM PDT

  •  You ask (0+ / 0-)

    The message we've been hearing over and over from the leadership is that whatever bill comes up next is going to be even weaker, but why does that have to be?

    The answer is that every defeat will be used by Bush as a stick to beat the Democrats with in the media. Many Americans in less than royal blue states, lacking the initiative/time/intelligence to question this and read farther, will give the robotic response "They're not supporting the troops!" (click whirr).

    Blue Dogs will get even more frightened of voting for a bill with limitations.

    I have to agree with Dave Sirota that passing any bill that is more than non-binding is a step in the right direction. When the Blue Dogs found that the sky didn't fall in on them, they would be "emboldened" to vote for something more stringent.
    David Sirota: A Memo to the Progressive Caucus On the Eve of the Iraq Vote

  •  The House is voting on bills like this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque

    which are weak (and even then have no chance of becoming law) are because people like some on Daily Kos are demanding that Congress do something about the war and they want to do something now

    So their choices are to have a really strong bill which won't even make it out of the House (to say nothing of the Senate) and appease the "end it now" group or try to make their best stab at a bill that will get the most support.

    They're going the 2nd route.

    [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:12:58 PM PDT

  •  Not necessarily bad (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    conchita, TomP, davewill, planyourday

    Correct me if I'm wrong. A 'no' vote on the supplemental funding bill will send everything back to the drawing board. Never passing a supplemental funding bill will be tantamount to cutting funding for the war, which is one way to cut funding while not giving the appearance of directly cutting funding for the war.

    The WH and DOJ wouldn't be the only ones to gum issues.

    •  good luck with that (0+ / 0-)

      Never passing a supplemental funding bill will be tantamount to cutting funding for the war, which is one way to cut funding while not giving the appearance of directly cutting funding for the war.

      Most people are going to view refusing to fund the war as, well, refusing to fund the war.  The only question is which side does public opinion go against: republicans since they're obstructing a bill that people generally agree with, or democrats because the public may feel (stress may) that funding should be separate from getting troops out.

      [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:24:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  what is a procedural vote? (0+ / 0-)

    might as well be honest about my ignorance.  is this a vote to get it out of committee?

    •  A procedural vote is, in this situation, a vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      conchita

      which sets the rules of debate (how long, how many if any amendments can be allowed, etc).

      Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:23:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that said, does anyone have info on which (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP

        ammendments were allowed?  something tells me barbara lee's was not.

        •  No amendments allowed, it looks like. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Night Owl, Geekesque, TomP

                Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

               Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1591 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

          Link

          Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

          by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:40:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  three soldiers a day-we are out of time (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cowalker, TexasTwister, TomP

    Please please do not look at this as a political chess game.  Everyday three more soldiers die, - - 100 more days- 300 soldiers- two more years-another 2000 soliders.  Who should they be?  The 18 year olds  fresh from high school who just got to Iraq? Should it be the  older reservists with families and careers at home?  Should it be the single Moms supporting kids living with grandparents? Should it be the green card soldiers, hoping to live long enough for citizenship?  When the Congress games the funding, they are not standing against the war, they are just saying they are willing to continue to offer up American citizens for the gamble of their lives in Iraq.

    If you are not against it you are for it!
    Please- we are out of time-tomorrow another American soldier will be dead, who are we to sacrifice tomorrow?
    NOT ONE MORE DIME NOT ONE MORE DEATH
    Celeste Zappala
    Mother of Sgt Sherwood Baker, KIA 4/26/04
    Gold Star Families Speak Out

  •  Can someone tell me why my logic is incorrect? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque

    My opinion is that there's basically no shot to stop the war before January 2009 and a new President, or by having a DoD shutdown similar to the 1995 government shutdown crisis between Clinton and the Republican Congress.

    Here's my logic. Please to be telling me why I'm full of it.

    • Let's pretend that the House passes a funding resolution for the DoD that is a wet dream for Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Moveon.org, every dKos contributor and so on- troops to be removed in 6 months, etc.
    • Let's further stipulate that somehow Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate Democratic leadership gets this through the Senate. (We already know we're well into fantasyland here, considering that Reid's resolution lost 48-50, but as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant, because...)
    • So, just like it goes in Schoolhouse Rock, this lands on President Bush's desk, at which point he vetoes it with a bunch of "you Defeatocrats aren't going to ruin my perfectly good war" or whatever.

    OK, so then what? Does anyone think we can override a veto on this (288 votes in the House, 67 in the Senate)? (Note that functionally, the veto override vote in the Senate is the same as impeachment- you have to find 17 Republicans who'll desert the President either way. Good luck with that.)

    So given that we can't override a veto, the alternative is to not fund the DoD's operations in Iraq at all, right, since Bush would veto anything that tells him "get out of Iraq"? Doesn't this mean shutting the DoD down, for all intents and purposes, just like the federal government shut down in 1995, with the exception of some skeleton operations? And why do we think that would go over any better with the American public than it did in 1995?

    It seems to me the President and fellow Republicans would LOVE to be thrown in that briar patch, and under those circumstances, they would be quite justified in saying we are abandoning the troops (since they'd be in Iraq with no funding to fight OR withdraw), and I think it fairly likely we'd have a constitutional crisis on our hands (and, again, with an impeachment vote, you still need those 17 Republicans).

    Divided government sucks... but it seems to me the biggest roadblock to getting troops out is the fact that the executive and C-in-C isn't in agreement with Congress, and the correct thing to do was, a) not start the war to start with, and is b) put the executive branch in the hands of people who aren't pigheaded about Iraq.

    But hey, if I'm wrong, please, tell me how so. I'm open to ideas. It just seems to me that freaking out because funding resolution language isn't tough enough is sort of pointless, because the odds of it actually becoming law are negligible, and our troop presence in Iraq isn't going to change until the occupancy of the Oval Office changes.

    •  The key will be to wear down Congressional (0+ / 0-)

      and Establishment Republicans to the point where they pull the plug on Bush.

      And, yes, it's not as simple as defunding the war.  Mr. Unitary Executive will just spend money authorized for other purposes on the Iraq war.

      People act as if strings attached to money is any more binding on the lawless chimp than a binding timeline.

    •  You are essentially correct except.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FleetAdmiralJ

      it is different than 1995. The American people want out of Iraq, do not want this escalation and do not want to see more Americans dying. That kind of sentiment makes it imperative that Dems play as hard as they can to stop this war, reverse direction, and fund only a redeployment.

      Defunding is a BAD frame. Funding redeployment means bringing our troops out of a deadly civil war.

      •  The problem is that if you give Bush the (0+ / 0-)

        money he'll spend it as he sees fit.  

      •  Don't think you're getting my point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Diana Rowe Pauls

        Essentially, what you'd do if you follow that course of action is shut down the entire DoD if Congress and the President can't agree on a funding mechanism for DoD operations past whenever the current appropriation runs out.

        The appropriation bill that finances withdrawing us from Iraq takes a law, the same way continuing the war does. The President has to sign the law, or let it take effect without his signature, or his veto has to be overridden. If he doesn't assent, you don't have ANY financing, and in theory. soldiers don't get paid, and so on.

        If you think "Defeatocrats" and "slow bleed" are bad, imagine "They want to leave our troops stuck in Iraq without any funding". I don't think I've seen any polls that say the American people want THAT.

        Again, the problem is that the President has every incentive to play political chicken up through January 2009 ("I'm the decider, and I decide when our troops leave, not you"), and the R's in Congress are still going to back him up. It would be unconscionable to leave troops in Iraq without ANY funding while the D's in Congress and the President try to see who blinks first- and would almost certainly backfire in the next election (remember, Bush isn't on the ballot in 2008, but 435 Congresspeople and 33 Senators are).

        If you can get an appopriations bill PAST a veto override, that's a new ballgame. Until then, I think a strategy of getting something out of the House, ANYTHING, is fine. This is going to take a while, and until we have some Republicans along for the ride, it's all symbolic, anyway.

    •  Shut down what? Shut off occupation by not (0+ / 0-)

      funding it? Yes, that's the plan. And a very popular move it will be with about 60% of the American people, and I'd guess 80% plus of us Democrats. So, yeah, doing something that will be wildly popular with both the base and a lot of the independent voters.

      I can't see a downside, except for those who really don't want us out.

      If you want to see what God thinks of money, look at the people He gave a lot of it to. - Dorothy Parker

      by planyourday on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:36:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why the earmarks? (0+ / 0-)

         I'm ashamed that the Democrats have larded the bill with non-germane earmarks.
  •  Did the motives of Nader voters in 2000 (0+ / 0-)

    matter at the end of the day?

  •  If this supplemental fails, it will be because of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davewill

    a strange alliance between Conservative Dems who don't want it because it is TOO restrictive and Progressive Dems who don't want it because it is TOO lenient and defers power to Bush. Then what? Do Dems move even further right (less restrictive with no deadlines) giving Bush more of what he wants or further left (more restrictive) toward fund shifting to redeployment and refuse to fund the escalation.

    I just don't know the answer to this question.

    •  Or realize than no compromise is possible and (0+ / 0-)

      pass a short-term spending bill so that public debate can continue.

      Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.

      by davewill on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:14:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, then, all Dems should recognize this... (0+ / 0-)

        results in funding an escalation of the war and binds Bush to NOTHING. Because he will either veto this OR ignore it with a signing statement, and eventually let the SCOTUS decide in his favor as C-in-Chief.

        Dems should go with a stronger bill (the progressive alternative) which will also get vetoed.

  •  WE MUST CONTINUE TO MAKE CALLS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jennifer poole

    glad to see that nadler voted no.  he was a yes a few days ago.  my guess is that when they did not allow her amendment they lost his vote.  i am very happy to hear this having called his office each day this week.  those who are calling, please stick with it.  

  •  I find myself agreeing with some of the rethugs.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mimir

    "this bill is a sham". But for different reasons, of course!

  •  Adding the earmarks and "pork" was (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davewill

    a really stupid move. Opens them up to the sanctimonius criticism of the "budget-conscious" Conservatives. This thing has become a real (blue) dog of a bill.

  •  so now we're not for ending the war (0+ / 0-)

    but making sure the blame rests with the GOP?

    something just changed then.

    All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

    by SeanF on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:08:26 PM PDT

    •  "we" are for ending the war. Congress is another (0+ / 0-)

      matter. This is the Congress that voted to approve Bush's illegal invasion, remember, no matter the caveats they say now, and no matter that there are some new faces. Did a single Democratic anti-Iraq-occupation challenger beat a single incumbent Democrat who voted for the IWR? I don't think a single one did. Yes, a bunch of Democrats beat a bunch of Republicans, and I'm glad they did, no matter what happens with this bill.

      there are two mistakes being made here:

      1. thinking a Democratic majority was an anti-Iraq-occupation majority;
      1. thinking that a Democratic majority which isn't an anti-Iraq-occupation majority is essentially the same as a GOP majority.

      oops let me add a third VERY BIG mistake:

      1. Thinking that this bill will be "good politics" -- I agree with mcjoan and others that it won't be. Those who think this bill is "good politics" are the same people back before the 2004 primaries (many of them here) who said a Democratic presidential candidate who didn't "support the war" couldn't win. Instead, Kerry's IWR vote handicapped him, and muddied the waters of the politics of contrast.

      nonetheless, I still would vote Kerry instead of Nader. And I'll keep on working to elect more and better Democrats to Congress so that we get an anti-Iraq-occupation majority, and working to elect a Democratic presidential candidate who doesn't tell us she expects U.S. troops to be in Iraq through the end of her first term.

      •  interesting comment (0+ / 0-)

        i was referring to the rationale mcjoan has offered earlier that the only type of bill we can support is one that ends the war now. Or something in that direction. Whereas now, it seems she's saying we should reject this bill because it's bad politics, or it'll allow the GOP to escape complete blame for Iraq.

        so my question is, is mcjoan simply a contrarian on this matter?

        All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

        by SeanF on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:50:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ok, Orwellian language by Dems.... (0+ / 0-)

    Ending the war means continuing the war, with "benchmarks and deadlines" which cannot be enforced.

  •  What would Edsall like Dems to do in the meantime (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque

    is probably to pass a naked supplemental funding bill without all this frou-frou while they drum up support.  His article doesn't support the argument.

    My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

    by Major Danby on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:10:34 PM PDT

  •  Glad to see front-page of this view. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mimir

    The Democrats can do nothing to stop the war.  They can take the blame for any disaster that happens after they assume a posture of micro-manageing the war, though they will still in no way have any effect on the action on the ground.  Bush will have the power to effect action on the ground, think Fallujah '04.  The military told him it would birth a disaster and then followed his order.
    This is what the Democrats should be telling the people. Not setting themselves up to take the blame for the next disaster.  I suspect the passage of this oil bill will instigate a wider resistance that will mark another bloody mile-stone in Bush's reign of carnage.  And they've been pushing the conversation daily, since before the election, that the Democrats want things to go badly in Iraq so that they can win the WH because that's all they care about.  I suspect the Rightist coup operatives are thrilled with the Progressive agenda and glad for any baby steps the Dems take that will inject them into a pose of effective action in Iraq.  I'd be for it if it would be true.  But it won't be.  The word "time-table" is a gift to these reactionaries.  They think it can get them into the WH despite their utter contempt for and abuse of this country.

    That being pragmatically said, I am, and have been for many years, grateful and proud to have the Honorable John Lewis as my Representative.  Wish this was a State that would send him to the Senate.

    "Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

    by tribalecho on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:22:56 PM PDT

  •  As usual, the Republicans are muddying... (0+ / 0-)

    the waters and playing the Democrats like a fiddle.

    There's one principled thing the Democrats can do to short-circuit this entire perilous mind-game, and that is to file articles of impeachment.

    That will put some real focus into the Republicans' deliberations, especially since it will evaporate Bush's power to pardon the members of his crime syndicate. Some at the top will quickly start seeing jailduds in their future, and you might be surprised how cooperative they suddenly become in ending the war.

    Stop these stupid parlor games and show them some brass knuckles, please.  It really, really is the only they respect.

    Waxman? Conyers? If you don't have anyone on your staffs who can draw up articles, there's a legion of people around here you can outsource the job to...

  •  It seems to me... (0+ / 0-)

    "Keeping the fault of this war and its mismanagement firmly on GOP shoulders is..."

    Where it belongs.

  •  out of iraq caucus should call blue dogs' bluff (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Night Owl, Mimir

    if they want to openly side with the republicans and keep us in the war, at least we'd know exactly what side they're on.

    pelosi's whipping the wrong caucus. the blue dogs are fucking moles for the right, and their demands to give bush a free hand put us all at risk for backlash should this war be going on 2 years from now.

    if this does pass, when bush vetoes or disregards its provisions, pelosi et al, had better be willing to impeach the son of a bitch for it, instead of protesting impotantly and talkign about 2008.

    this is a hell of a gamble either way you vote, and the country itself is the stakes. the blue dogs and the democratic leadership who is unwilling or unable to whip them have bet wrong on every single issue in the past six years. i have no confidence in their bet this time, but i will give them due credit if they're able to use this to control bush and end the war.

    if it's just meant as BS impotent positioning OTOH, we ought to at least make a clearer, harder symbolic statement against the war, though.

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:28:21 PM PDT

  •  Let Blue dogs and Rethugs pass... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mimir, dgone36

    a supplemental that continues this war. That is probably the only outcome of this anyway. And Bush will go forward anyway.

    The Dems should NEVER had entered into this Devil's bargain that will NOT stop the war and WILL make them complicit in escalating it.

    Why wouldn't they let Barbara Lee and progressives offer their amendment?

  •  Letting the stench of the war stick to repubs is (0+ / 0-)

    tempting, but, ultimately both immoral and irresponsible.  Dems should focus on repub incompetence and the need for the Dems to exercise some strong moral leadership.  The American voter isn't totally stupid.  

  •  I Hate the War and Bush more but... (0+ / 0-)

    Just vote to stop this war, whatever gets us their I support, I was at the Pentagon and Mall in Jan. but....But, bribery is no excuse to get votes, no matter how naive i may be.

    I'm asking Dems to act responsibly.

    Bribery paid by adding spending that belongs in the budgetary process is wrong. We complain about Debt increases, and we continue with no control on our own waste. I fully support funding for the Vet issues, but it gets lost with spending that belongs in the budget process, if at all. I would like to see Democrats stand up and demand the end to corporate welfare, if congress is looking for real money, support Senator Dorgan, now.  When the  lobbyists show up to wahhhhhhhhhhhhh, tell them to go screw themselves. Why do we ignore this real crime against Americans?

    The support of farms in Calif, is "Corporate Welfare." I lived in Fresno,
    Sam Farr (D-Calif.) wants, $25 million for spinach growers hurt by last year's E. coli scare, most of the farms are corporate run.

    For three conservative Democrats in Georgia, there is $75 million for peanut storage.

    50 Million for Capitol improvements when the new wing for visitor ctr. is 500M over budget, is nuts.  

    For lawmakers from the bone-dry West, there is
    $500 million for wildfire suppression. If and when this funding is needed, couldn't it be added to any bill passing? We live with a government that has 1 policy, use it or lose it.  

    $120 million is earmarked for shrimp and Atlantic Salmon fishermen. Katrina is 18 monthly ago. Why are we not demanding that matching funds be waived so the people in NOLA, the poor and those wiped out and let them begin to rebuild. Maybe my comments don't belong here, but i'm still pissed, these expenditure belong in the budget process.

    Ok  fire away....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site