I’m watching MS-NBuchananC. And there is some Republican on there saying (taunting) that the left-wing base is going to get disenchanted with the Democrats if all they do is a silly non-binding ‘sense of the Congress’ thing and cannot stop the war. He is saying that we will all turn on the Dems if they can’t magically get our troops home.
So, here is my question. Is that true? Do you feel like the Dems are letting you down, not doing enough, taking the wrong or insufficient strategy?
I don’t want to skew your responses, but I think Joe Biden put it very well yesterday. He said (paraphrasing), “The President will find it hard to ignore a majority of the Congress telling him he is pursuing the wrong strategy. This is particularly true because 21,500 troops are not going to arrive in Iraq overnight. This is a process that will take months to unfold and the every major foreign policy thinker, the Joint Chiefs, the Generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the Congress is saying escalating, more troops, is the wrong choice.”
In my view, we have a choice between losing a vote over stopping funds and winning a vote over rebuking the policy. If we win these sense of the Congress votes then I think we will see another seismic shift against the war like the one that followed the midterm elections. I think they are taking a cautious but wise strategy.
What do you think?
I would like to see the Congress pass both votes you refer to, but I’ll take a one of two win. They should also get all the troops out asap and impeach bush and cheney at the same time, but I acknowledge I may not get my whole wish list, as both Xmas and Fitzmas are now behind us.
I worry that losing the vote over funding might create the wrong kind of momentum and also splinter our unity.
yah, there are too many moderates who will vote against removing funding.
Personally, I realize that if Bush is dead set on escalation there isn’t much we can do short of impeachment or completely gutting the Pentagon, which is the real problem here.
What we can do is increase the pain threshold for the GOP, I think they are the only people with leverage on the President. We can make them pay an unimaginable price for supporting escalation. That is why “I told you so”, non-binding resolutions, which will come back to haunt the GOP are so important. I can see the 2008 TV add now, and them trying to explain how they were for the war, before they were against it. If we can peel off even a few GOPers to call it a bipartisan resolution, it will be even worse for them.
In my view, we have a choice between losing a vote over stopping funds and winning a vote over rebuking the policy.
I’d rather do both. Rebuking is well and good, but if something more substantial is available then Democrats should be doing it. And BooMan, I believe that you’re aware that most here will agree with this.
Well, I want a pony, but…
For that you need buhdydharma, we’ve only got frogs here.
no ponies, booman, just stop worrying about losing a vote. nancy pelosi didn’t worry about it and she seems to have survived. man up!
Discussion also available in orange.
I am fine with firing a warning shot with the the sense of the senate vote, but only if it’s backed up by actual action. I’ve had it with Sissy-boy Reid’s dry powder.
Damn. Cher called Reid a sissy-boy.
Sorry CG,
seems I started something ugly LOL!
Ha..well Biden’s wrong to start with by saying that the President will find it hard to ignore the majority of Congress..hahahaha..since when has bush paid any goddamn attention to anyone. When are they going to get it through their heads that bush considers himself a know-it-all dictator with god on his side therefore he can do no wrong.
Which is why the dems can’t screw around and play nice. Vote against any funding, vote to bring troops home do whatever they have to and no fooling around thinking bush will start to ‘listen’ to reason.
Softly-softly catchee monkey.
Rome wasn’t built in a day.
How many other cliches can I come up with to illustrate my feelings?
Non-binding resolution first. Vote down the funds for escellatio later if it comes to that.
.
WASHINGTON D.C. (Washington Post) – For the Republicans, there are two ways out of Iraq. They can either go out like Eisenhower or like Nixon.
As the first Republican to occupy the White House since the coming of the New Deal, Dwight Eisenhower could have chosen to divide the public and try to roll back Franklin Roosevelt’s handiwork. In fact, he didn’t give that option a moment’s consideration. Social Security and unions, he concluded, were here to stay; any attempt to undo them, he wrote, would consign the Republicans to permanent minority status. Ike also ended the Korean War without attacking Democrats in the process.
…
A Nixonian perspective also acknowledges that the war cannot be won but believes that blame for the defeat can still, somehow, be placed on the Democrats. If only the Democrats can be held responsible for defunding the troops, if only the U.S. presence in Iraq can be prolonged until it falls to the next administration (which may be Democratic) to end it, if only enough Republicans on the Hill can be dissuaded from voting with the Democrats’ attempts to rein in the war, if only the surge engenders some wild and crazy antiwar demonstrations, then maybe, just maybe, there’s a way to keep the war going without destroying the GOP. These options may seem a bit far-fetched, but who believes that Karl Rove hasn’t at least thought about them in his more contemplative moments?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I would support an army of blind, flying monkeys if they put an end to this war and the evil reign of the blood-profiteers.
That being said, I think the Dems are gambling with the non-binding resolutions, hoping that it will fire up the U.S. citizenry to put political pressure on the White House for them. I heard something to that effect yesterday on NPR, perhaps it was Biden? Seems like a finger in the wind type gambit to see where the people are on this debacle.
I still have the feeling that we’re being governed more by electoral posturing than real governance. That fact did not change in November.
Why don’t they have the spine to tell the Pentagon that their fat, bloated budget has reached its limit? We spend an obscene amount of money on war-games, especially as it relates to the rest of the world’s budgets. I think they’ve had enough candy.
Not so much…as Borat would say. Look folks, the time has come to quit playing it “safe” and stop thinking of just their political ambitions. These are human lives they are gambling with. When will one of them other than Feingold say enough is enough. No more war! We are done!?
Yesterday, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, and Barbara Lee introduced HR 508, “The Bring Our Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007”, the most serious and binding of any proposed legislation in the House.
Here is a link to the draft text from Rep. Woolsey’s web site.
Go to the Library of Congress’s Thomas site and enter in the keyword “Iraq” in the search box.
Now, decide whether the Democrats are doing enough on the war.
The way I sees it is that, the democratic congress has only been functional for 10 days excluding the w/e’s. What do you want Boo???? they are trying…I suggest we given them room to function. I am not a politician, but I have been in a position to get things done asap and I have to have breathing room to get it done. In other words do not crowd me in, there partner…pony or not. ;o)
I think the symbolic vote to repudiate the eascalation policy is useful as a means to clarify who stands where and to further define and isolate the BushCo plan in all it’s blazing, insane grandiosity. I’ve never been one who thought impeachment was likely to happen; (even now I stil think the Decider will have a complete emotional and/or mental breakdown befor his term expires); but I do think a repudiation by a strong congressional majority would provide significant added protection for members to embrace and support the real possibility of impeachment, (for delusional negligence), going forward.
I also think it would be good for the Dems to push forward a measure tostop funding. We the people need to know who stands where on this. Sadly, I suspect only 1 Dem Senator and only a very small handful of House members would support such a measure. Because of this poor showing amongst the Dems such a vote wil not be sought, and this is why I remain displeased with the behavior of the Dems who, just like the Repubs, place self interest over national interest, place personal ambition over principle.
I won’t be disappointed because I expect nothing from 90% of them, a bunch of corporatist, pro-military, pro-imperialists members of the one party American government. They are either cowards or part of the problem, most of them.
Can’t disappoint me if you promise nothing but a nicer version of the same corruption. On to Iran!
I am not patient and I hate incremental gains. I don’t like long courtships. Quite the Bad pattern for a political junkie seeking gratification and revenge. Anyway, I think that the momentum for rejecting the war is not measured by me or the rest of people who read/write here. Meaning: to ‘move the meter’I must accept the nonbinding resolution as likely to succeed and reject the certain failure of shooting for the starburst of cutting off the war funds.
The big media will play any loss as serious setback for us. But the same big media will also grudgingly concede the nonbinding as a loss for Bushco and a win for us. Slow=mo.
Since I am impatient I HATE the choice, but I think I must choose the sure thing and KEEP the antiwar momentum going. A vote for Booman PRAGMATICS,here.
IMHO… If they are not doing EVERYTHING within their power to stop this, then they are not only part of the problem, but they are guarenteeing that they will be held just as accountable as republicans for this fiasco.
They can “BUY” Iraq, or they can stop it.