Democrats should vote "NO" on today's war funding bill

[welshTerrier2]

here we go again ... the only power the Senate has is the "power of the purse" ... here's a chance to say "no more" to bush's war ...

one might argue, "as long as we have troops there, we have to continue funding them" ... that's the argument I get the most when i call for a "NO" vote on more war funding ... no, i don't want the troops to go without the supplies they urgently need ...

a "No" vote should be made on more war funding until the funds are explicitly earmarked for "approved purposes" ... these would include costs directly associated with withdrawal, costs for medical coverage for the troops, etc. ... the idea is that we should fund and take full care of the troops with the understanding that we are leaving ... period ...

the only vehicle available to the Congress is to shut-off funding for the war or to sharply constrain how funding will be used ... "Congress holds the purse strings" ... the idea that bush would keep defenseless unfunded troops in Iraq when Congress has stopped funding their presence there seems most unlikely to me ... it would be his actions, not those of a Congress that voted against more war funding, that would be outrageously irresponsible ...

those genuinely committed to ending bush's war should vote "No" ... i'm afraid I don't see that as very likely ... this will not be a proud day for Democrats when they write bush yet another blank check with no strings attached ...

[kentuck]

1. I think that may be the whole purpose of the vote....

to try and get Dems to vote no so Repubs can have an issue. They are searching desperately for an issue. They are playing politics with war.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. DING DING DING!!!

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

The best they can do is rail on and on why this wasn't in the Pres's budget...again.

[blm]

26. They have never stopped playing politics with war.

If someone like Kerry or Murtha votes against it, they will say "How do you expect any withdrawal plan could even happen unless the Iraqi soldiers get trained and the logistics are paid for?" And the corporate media will no doubt let the Repubs own the spin.

But, we'll see. I can trust and hope, but reality can be a whole other ballgame.

[Atman]

2. But they won't. Bush's numbers have to be negative 32.

Then they still won't vote against anything he does. Spineless pussies, every one of them.

As long as we have citizens in America, Senators, we should continue funding THEM first! And you're not. You're taking money out of the pockets of my children and their children and their children's children. You shouldn't give Bush a fucking PENNY. He and Cheney and Rummy can find the money they need out of that which they've ALREADY LOOTED FROM THE TREASURY if their personal little war is so fucking important to them.

[acmejack]

3. There is absolutely no way they will.

I wish they would, but unfortunately the People's unified opposition to this war means absolutely nothing. Watch & see what the margin it passes by is.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. I called both yesterday to say 'no' to more funding and to any money

for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq.

[Pithy Cherub]

5. A definitive character-building NO vote should be cast,

because it is the moral, right and consistent thing to do to show independence and a willingness to dissent. But alas, the political thing will be done first. Hence an aye vote will be spun as bi-partisan support for the Iraq War effort, therefore leaving an illusion of support for this debacle.

[welshTerrier2]

8. the symbolism of voting "yes"

is that you support more war ... no amount of speechifying can undo this action ...

[Pithy Cherub]

11. We shall be enlighted as to who stands on principle

and who stands in the cesspools of political hacks.

[welshTerrier2]

14. a political calculation

no person in their right mind can genuinely believe bush will lead us to a positive outcome in Iraq ... i can't imagine any elected Democrats genuinely believe he will ...

the tragic conclusion one must then draw, is that their continued support for the war by their blank check funding of it, sans strings attached, is a vote for nothing beyond political expediency ...

and i think it even fails on that score ... when the American people look for toughness and bold leadership, they will not see a Democratic Party willing to take the risks of going head-to-head with bush on Iraq ... they're going to see a Party with its finger in the wind succumbing to the nonsense that attaching strings to the war budget is "going against the troops" ...

truly, we will fail both politically and on the issues if we can't see further down the road than that ... we're so worried about "giving the republicans an issue" that we've given up our souls in the process ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. All that'll amount to is us "Not supporting the troops!"

And with such a direct vote like this, it will stick.

If we were in power, however, and could actually end the war through these actions, that'd be a different story.

[welshTerrier2]

9. "we shouldn't stand up for our values"

"because it will enable republicans to make political gains" ...

that's what i'm hearing in your strategy ... perhaps you're comfortable with that; i'm not ...

i think Democrats will benefit politically by showing a little backbone and saying that they will support continued war funding ONLY IF the money is used for approved purposes ...

otherwise, they are just enabling bush's war agenda ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. No, that is not what you're hearing.

What you're hearing is "we shouldn't make a meaningless stand for our values today so that we can actually stand for our values with some authority behind it tomorrow."

I'm sorry, but in this case, you're directly advocating not providing our troops with pay and armor, even if you're doing it with the intentions of ending the war. That is how it WILL play out. That is not showing backbone, that's running full speed ahead into a death trap.

[welshTerrier2]

12. "advocating not providing our troops with pay and armor"

you could not have read the OP and made this statement ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. You're not understanding me.

I'm not talking about what you're TRYING to say with a "no" vote. I'm telling you how it would be spun and how the American people WOULD believe it. Perception is reality.

[welshTerrier2]

15. let's talk about perception ...

i trust your perception is that the Dems would suffer politically if they voted "no" ... fair enough? if not, please explain ...

i think you're dead wrong ... i think people see both parties as willing to do or say anything, absolutely anything, to get elected ... some 50 million (or whatever the number is now) have stopped voting entirely ... do you think the Dem message is getting through to them? do you think playing politics with war is what they're looking for?

the perception you should be worried about is that the Party will be seen as weak because it refused to directly confront bush on the war ... of course the republicans will try to spin the issue ... of course they'll argue Dems refused to support the troops ... this is a "mommy, he called me a bad name" argument ...

i'm want to win just as you do ... i worry about perception and politics just as you do ... i think you, and the Party, have it wrong ... voters are desperate for someone who will stop the politics and get down to some "real" ... until we do that, our gains will derive from bush's failures and the bankruptcy of neo-con ideology ... these gains are positive but they will be shallow and short-lived ... it need not be that way ...

i support ensuring troop safety to the max ... period ... but i support fighting for "strings attached" because we should stand up and get real about the war and stop pretending that we're in Iraq for legitimate purposes ... we're not ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Answers

You talk about the 50 million Americans that don't vote. I think you're giving them far and away too much credit. I think 50 million Americans don't vote because the majority of those 50 million Americans couldn't even name our first 3 Presidents. In other words, they don't know and don't care and will not, ever.

Skipping ahead a bit in your post, if you're arguing in favor of fighting for trying to pass amendments and riders to the bill that specifically state when the war should be ending, I'm far and away in favor of that. We'd be on the same page there. I can't justify a "no" vote on the whole thing though. Did you not see what happened to Kerry in 2004 when he tried to do that exact same thing?

[Pithy Cherub]

16. Being ruled by fear of what people might say

is why Democrats are the minority party today.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. That's not true at all.

That's a very narrow perception of the political landscape.

[Pithy Cherub]

19. Reality bites.

On IWR how many are apologetic abject lamenters today because the vote was politically expedient rather than principled? and on and on....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. I have a better question for you.

How many of those Senators are still in office today and capable of lamenting that vote BECAUSE of that vote? The truth of the matter is that many, if not most of them, would be long out of office today if they had not voted as they did.

[Pithy Cherub]

21. Exhibit A - Joementum. He's a bit scared these days.

Bush Rose Garden Daschle voted Aye and was defeated. Callahan defeated as well. FORMER Senator Edwards is where and said he was wrong when? Kerry has said he was wrong because he wants to run in 2008. Boxer went to Cindy Sheehan and said please don't run. DiFi is running to the Left now to shore up support.

Feingold, Boxer, et al were reelected with no problems with a morally principled No Vote.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Are they from red states?

And did either of them run for President in 2004? No, and no. Was Daschle from a red state? Yes, the same one that wants to outlaw abortion. Do you really think he'd have been re-elected had he voted against the war? Kerry would NOT have even come close to winning in 2004 had he voted against IWR. Edwards didn't run for re-election.

Your point is not proven. You fail to remember the mindset in 2002. You have forgotten about Senator Cleland.

[Pithy Cherub]

23. The failure is with those who voted Aye

and stupidly believed that the *mindset* of whatever day and age is permanent. Red or Blue. That's why the standup pols voted with their conscience and it will stand up beautifully in the blinding glare of History.

Robert Byrd from a Red State and cast the proudest vote NO on IWR and will be re-elected after this year.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Robert Byrd had just been re-elected.

He was fully protected and had the capability of doing so. Had he been up for re-election in 2002 or 2004, I guarantee you that he would not have done so.

Seriously, you are deluded if you think the names of the men who voted against IWR are going to be remembered after this war is over. Do you remember the individuals in Congress who voted during the Vietnam War era? Do you even remember the individuals who voted during the GULF War era? If you do, you're in a vast minority, I can assure you of that.

And the only stupidity is your belief that our Congressional leaders thought the mindset of the day would be permanent. Of course they know that. You know what? I'd get into it further, but this seems like a vast waste of time. You fail to remember the political climate of the day and you fail to understand the very basics of politics.

[Pithy Cherub]

30. You are entitled to your belief in politics more than principle.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. And you're entitled to your incorrect, holier than thou beliefs.

BECAUSE I believe in principle, I play the game of politics. Perhaps for the self-righteous people that only see the world in black and white, like you, you see the two as being mutually exclusive, but in reality, that couldn't be further from the truth.

[Pithy Cherub]

32. Principle isn't for those who place it beneath politcal stands.

It is up to you as to whether you believe politics or principle was the motivator for the IWR vote. As you clearly stated it was about the politics. Principle is a belief put into action beyond just mere words when the chips are down. That's why it is a moral obligation in times of War and using the treasury to stand up when others are made uncomfortable because of taking an easier political path.

[Totally Committed]

25. Agreed...

not one more dollar. It's all going to Halliburton, not the troops, anyway.

TC

[sandnsea]

27. Solution oriented campaign

If I could shake one thing into the heads of our loveable lefties, it would be... stop saying NO.

Construct the "approved purposes" part and create a movement around that. I'll be back, I've got babysitting duty shortly.

[welshTerrier2]

33. "Approved purposes"

you said "construct the approved purposes" ...

ask and ye shall receive:

here's the McGovern bill ... pay special attention to the "Exceptions" section:

source: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/end

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `End the War in Iraq Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DEPLOY ARMED FORCES TO IRAQ.

(a) Prohibition- Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy the Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq.

(b) Exception- Subsection (a) shall not apply to the use of funds to--

(1) provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq; or

(2) ensure the security of Iraq and the transition to democratic rule by--

(A) carrying out consultations with the Government of Iraq, other foreign governments, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and other international organizations; or

(B) providing financial assistance or equipment to Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq.

(c) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of funds available to any department or agency of the Government of the United States (other than the Department of Defense) to carry out social and economic reconstruction activities in Iraq.

(d) Definition- In this section, the term `Armed Forces' has the meaning given the term in section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code.

[sandnsea]

34. Should be an alternative supplemental

With those provisions, more specific costs. Terrorism intelligence has to be included because there really are terrorists there now. It needs to be paid for by repealing other tax cuts. And it needs a snappy name (pathetic but true).

I bet with all the brains at DU, we could come up with a good alternative bill that proves that even the far left knows how to govern.

[OneTwentyoNine]

28. War funding--ROFLOL....How bout Halliburton/KBR funding?

Thats what it always comes down to,more money to keep those fat-ass contracts in place for Halliburton...

[Mass]

29. Agreed -

[TayTay]

35. I have questions about this 'emergency funding bill'

Not the least of which is why are we doing all these emergency funding bills in the first place? Does this place the war itself 'off-budget'? This is a crappy way to fund anything in the government. The possibility of waste and abuse are rampant.

What are the Katrina provisions in this bill? Who gets hurt if this doesn't pass? The Rethug bastards construct these bills with 'must pass' provisions in them that are likely the only sops the 'thugs are likely to throw at what are considered to be Democratic causes. So, if this doesn't pass, which is highly unlikely given the fact that it is a money bill, do the Dems have another chance to fund Katrina relief for the victims or is this it?

This is another Rove special, screw the country, sew everything up together and make sure the vote is as painful as possible for the Dems. Bastards.

Is this it for Katrina funding for the year?

[LittleClarkie]

36. Is this the one Bush is threatening to veto?

Because of the Katrina provisions? That's somewhere else on the board. Maybe it's a different bill. But he's threatening to veto SOMEthing Katrina related.

I'm wondering when the vote will be. Today?

[TayTay]

38. I wouldn't be surprised.

This version differs from the one passed by the House and the amount that the Prez asked for by over $10 billion dollars. I wouldn't be surprised to see * trying to weasel out of Katrina relief funds.

Even so, the other thing to concentrate on here is the essence of the Rethug traps that they keep laying in legislation. Mary Landreiu will vote for this bill. What choice does she have? She has to vote for the funding for her constituents.

The Rethugs keep crafting bills like this and we keep blaming Democrats for the vote. We also have to blame people like Rove who come up with these bad bills. There is no reason not to separate out the items being voted on. The Rethugs do this in order to split Democratic unity. They don't care about the issues involved as long as they can get Dems to fight with each other, they have a victory. It's sad.

[LittleClarkie]

39. It is this one, I found out. But if Iraq is in this bill too...

I can't imagine the Republicans trying defend Bush not funding, and therefore supporting, the troops. But somehow I also wouldn't be surprised if he did veto it, the hypocrite. It never did bother him to do exactly what he has accused others of doing (as he did to Kerry re the 87 billion), and then pretending that it didn't matter as he shouted "9/11" and "We must win the war on terra"

[wisteria]

37. It makes sense, yet sometimes in Washington, common sense is

lacking or confluent reasoning unlikely. Then, I wonder if the funding can be directed as suggested under the guidelines of Congress. Wouldn't the President, at times of war have the total authority to direct war funding at his discretion?