Republicans are chickenhawks, but Democrats are chickenshits

[mtnsnake]

Ending the war: All during the '06 elections, I heard so many of them bragging how they would cut off funding for Bush's illegal war if we took over Congress. Even after we won, I heard some of them boasting how Bush's surge would never get passed if he proposed such a surge because Democrats would simply vote down the funding for any proposed surge. Now that they have the chance to take a huge step in ending the war via cutting the funds for it, they're scared shitless that they'll be perceived as not being supportive of the troops if they vote any funding down...even including voting down the funding for Bush's senseless surge. Our own people have said just that! Unbelievable. If it's not the Republicans pushing us around, it's the Democrats own imaginations pushing them around. Instead of worrying about how they might be perceived for doing what's right, they need to grow a spine and just DO what's right!

Impeaching Bush: Ever since Bush's first term, all of us have dreamed about the day when we could get that 1-vote majority in the House that it takes to impeach the monster for his horrendous crimes against humanity. Well, our dream came true, and wadda you know. Instead of hearing a thing about impeachment, everything we hear is to the contrary. "Impeachment is off the table", "let's not rock the boat", "impeachment is STILL off the table", "it'll take too much time to impeach...our weekends start on Wednesdays", and blah blah fucking blah. Heck, we're not even hearing any RUMORS about impeachment, let alone seeing anything concrete ever get done about it. Every last one of them is afraid of their own shadow. Chickenshits they are!

Now I'm not saying that accomplishing either one will be a walk in the park. But if they don't even try, then they'll have nobody to blame but their chickenshit selves...nobody. Shame on them all.

[sandnsea]

1. That's Your Hillary!

I don't know what you're bitching about. You've done nothing for the last year except run down the people who have been fighting to end the war, and cheerleading for Hillary who everybody knew was blocking all war legislation for fear she'd appear weak in her presidential bid.

[mtnsnake]

2. Not true. Concerning Hillary, I've done nothing but defend her from your baseless LIES

that you have spread about her as much or more as any poster on this forum. Congratulations for changing the subject of this thread so quickly.

Now, back to the subject at hand...

[mtnsnake]

3. Way to go, sandsnsea. Change a thread about impeachment & the war into a Hillary flame.

You do it all the time. All you're concerned about is flaming Hillary 24/7 as you just made obvious.

[ddbaj]

4. I don't think dems...

Ever ran on the platform of cutting funding and impeachment. Perhaps some individual candidates did (not very many, I would venture).

Just sayin'.

[mtnsnake]

5. Who said anything about making their platform

They said things like that all during the various campaigns last Fall. It wasn't their entire platform, it was something that many of them bragged about more than once WITHIN their platforms.

[KingofNewOrleans]

7. So can you provide links

on these multitude of Congressmen bragging about impeachment last fall?

[mtnsnake]

8. Yeah, climb inside my ears and link to what I heard with both of them last Fall

What a dumb fucking question to ask for links to something anyone heard who was paying attention. Must be I made up the whole thing :eyes:

[Beaverhausen]

9. Name a couple of them. I can think of maybe one - Conyers

and maybe McKinney but she didn't win.

[KingofNewOrleans]

12. Wow, we should put you in charge of impeachment

because you're really good at documenting stuff.

[mtnsnake]

19. Better me than someone with no spine. nt

[sandnsea]

15. I never heard it

Nobody ran on cutting off funding to the war or impeachment. In fact, candidates ran on the exact opposite - impeachment off the table and not putting troops in danger by underfunding the way Republicans have. You've done nothing but praise Hillary for well over a year, say I'm lying when I've posted that she is the one blocking withdrawal stratgies, and now get in a tizzy fit because the war drags on. I fail to see the logic of your thought process over the last months and years.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

24. Funding. Impeachment.

Nobody heard those campaign promises except you. Put up or shut up.

You've been hailing Hillary for the last two years, and beating up Kerry who was fighting to end this war. Now you come here calling Democrats chickenshits because they won't defund??

phsst

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

23. BTW, "both of them" was a reference to both my ears, not both impeachment & funding

I never meant for you to take it that I thought anyone mentioned impeachment during their campaigns last Fall, only that they talked about cutting off funding for the war...but you probably already realized that.

[mtnsnake]

25. They bragged about cutting off FUNDING not impeachment last FALL!!!!

Wake up and stop changing around what I said. As far as what I said I heard them talking about last Fall, it was their threats to cut off funding. You really like to annoy people, dont you, by changing my entire post around with your own words. Go back and read it again and stop with the BS.

[KingofNewOrleans]

6. How many Congressmen ran on an "Impeachment"

platform? Impeachment is your fantasy with no basis on what candidates cmapaigned on. If there is any impreachment of Bush it's going to be a long grind it out process like with Nixon,it only took 16 months to get the smoking gun to impeach Nixon. Last time I check the Democrats are holding a multitude of hearings, will any of them evolve into a line of inquiry that results in impeachment? Who knows.

Your on firmer ground regarding the Iraq War, and I do think the Democrats will have to ultimately defund the war and we should put pressure on them to do so.

[mtnsnake]

10. Did I say anyone ran on an impeachment platform? Yes or No

[KingofNewOrleans]

13. You certainly seem to think the Democrats

are breaking a campaign promise, clearly it was a promise invented in your head.

[mtnsnake]

17. That's about the weakest, most feeble attempt at ducking your own BS

where you implied I said that some Democrats made impeachment their platform, when I never did. Instead of having the guts to say you made a mistake with your idiotic allegations about me saying something I didn't, you ducked the question and told me I invented all of this...as in lied.

You don't want to impeach? Fine. That's your purogative. You wanna make shit up about me? You're not going to get away with it.

You've got the same disease haunting so many of our Democrats. Weak spine disease.

[KingofNewOrleans]

20. Why are your expections of impeachment so high

if it wasn't even a topic of discussion during the last campaign by the people actually running and winning seats in Congress?

[mtnsnake]

28. Are you writing a book?

Would it by any chance be entitled, "Dumbest Questions Ever Asked"?

[KingofNewOrleans]

30. I take it by your response

that you can't answer my question.

[mtnsnake]

36. Not my expectations. My hopes...

My hopes are so high that Bush will be impeached because it would be a deterrant for future leaders to ever again lie us into a war so easily as Bush did.

My hopes are also high for impeachment because I feel justice must be done. We can't continue turning the cheek. All that does is encourage more of the same.

Another reason my hopes are so high is because I'm a little on the vindicative side. Payback would be sweet in more ways than one. Bill Clinton is in my mind's eye as I say that. Also, I'd feel satisfied that someone is finally looking out for the little guy if Bush was impeached.

[KingofNewOrleans]

43. Well, as I said in my original post

I think you're on firmer ground in pushing Congress to defund the Iraq War, you've got public opinion and a core of Congressmen sympathetic to the concept, if struggling for the means, to do it.

In the case of impeachment, you don't have the public opinion coalesced around the idea, the means (a smoking gun, even a feeble one like Clinton testifying under oath, is lacking) and no core of Congressmen to push it. Impeachment, and conviction, is an extreme measure and not easy to execute. The Repubs abused the process against Clinton and paid the price, and quite frankly if Nixon hadn't been stupid/arrogant enough to tape himself he would have probably wiggled free. Maybe one of the many investigations going on now may finally work their way up to Bush and impeachment but it will take a real smoking gun to do it.

I do think think Bush is incredibly dishonest (incompetent and arrogant and abusive of the powers of the Presidency too) I just don't think the opportunity for impeachment is there no matter how much you wish for it.

Bottom line--Energy directed towards ending the Iraq War is far more likely to pay off in a positive outcome than impeachment.

[Beaverhausen]

14. You said it in your post #5.

I understand that these issues are important to you and I too would love to get rid of Bush, but right now at least we are seeing an active congress.

Just look at the hearings that are happening today regarding the immediate needs of our wounded soldiers. Do you think a Hastert-led congress would be holding hearings now on the Walter Reed story?

[mtnsnake]

16. I never said any such thing. Go read it and quote me if I did

I said some of it said it WITHIN their platform. Jayeeeeeesus!!

[KingofNewOrleans]

22. What's the difference?

you seem to think some candidates ran and won while bragging about impeachment. I would like to know the names of those congressmen who ran and won bragging about impeachment. Preferably 218 or them, or at least 100, maybe a core group of 50? or 25? how about at least 5 congressmen. Five doesn't equal 218 but it would be a start.

[mtnsnake]

29. What's the difference? I don't like it when I get lied about. Isn't that obvious?

Just as you did for the umpteenth time in your last post. I never said anyone bragged about impeachment during their campaigns.

edited to remove an unnecessary and repetitive sentence.

[KingofNewOrleans]

32. OK, we both agree that Congressmen

did not campaign on impeachment last fall, why do you think they would suddendly be touting the idea now?

[mtnsnake]

38. Thank you....and I answered your question

you asked a few minutes ago in post #20.

[cyclezealot]

11. Not my Dennis Kucinich.

He has a mission to fight for the American people. Does not compromise with inferior ideas; that's why not popular with the big money guys.

[PresidentObama]

21. For this thread, forget talking about impeachment, let's talk about the war.

The war is very concerning to me. It's clear we need to end it, and I truely wish we would end before January 2008 so the next (Democratic?) President doesn't have to pick up the pieces of the Bush Administrations misguided war. That not only is unfair, but the will of the American people threw the GOP out of the majority in 06' because of their 'stay the course' message. Things have to change, and we have to get out. What I wish the Democrats would do is first take back the authorization they gave to Bush in the beginning, and then cut funding for the surge. That would send the message to Bush we aren't giving him the thumbs up to continue this war. Then we should pick through the proposed legislation our fine Democratic leaders have been assembling, and find the best way forward to responsibly end this war. In a perfect world, this would happen. I'll be very disappointed if our Democratic leaders make the mistakes of the past and be too cautious, and this war rages on into the next President's term.

Then whats our message in 2008? You elected us to bring an end to this war, instead we let Bush go ahead with his surge but oh we said we're against it!!

:banghead:

Even though he doesn't have a chance for the WH, I wish more leaders had balls like Rep. Kucinich!!

[AndyTiedye]

40. Impeaching Bush and Cheney May Be The Only Way to End The War

Any law Congress can pass to stop the war, Bush** can nullify by attaching a "signing statement".

Impeachment is the only power Congress has left.

[mtnsnake]

41. Since we're not going to cut off funding to end it, you're exactly right

Impeaching him would be the only other option, IMO, if we're not going to have the guts to cut off any kind of funding for fear of being perceived as unsupportive of the troops.

If we impeach, it'll be because Bush lied us into this war, which he did, and he might resign with just the threat of conviction hanging over him. Even if he didn't resign or wasn't convicted following his impeachment, it would set up the entire dialogue needed to end a war that was based on lies.

[PresidentObama]

44. As long as we end the war, impeach his ass. I won't save him.

But ending the war should be the top priority!! I'd rather stop the innocent killing of hundreds more instead of focusing on convicting Bushie first. If one can come with the other, let's do it!! God knows I'd love the war to end, and Bush's Presidency to end.

[blm]

27. You should take it up with the really powerful Dems who control the Dem agenda -

and let us know how they feel about your concerns, since they have far greater protection from the media and from the establishment powerstructure than any other faction of the Dem party.

[mtnsnake]

31. I did

I wrote a some emails inquiring about the possibility of impeachment and got no responses, other than a token "we got your letter, thank you" type thing.

I also tried sending snail mail letters, two of them to be exact, and got no responses yet, but I only sent them recently. I'm not going to hold my breath that I'll get any responses form anyone concerning impeachment.

[PresidentObama]

33. OT: One time I sent Senator Talent a concern, and got on his e-mailing list.

Totally off topic, but it really bugs me when leaders ignore the people who put them there. They have to listen to the will of the people. And currently, they aren't!!

:shrug:

[mtnsnake]

35. I don't think that's off topic

it really bugs me when leaders ignore the people who put them there. They have to listen to the will of the people. And currently, they aren't!!

That in essence is what I was trying to express with the first part of my OP, the part about ending the war. They hinted they'd try to end the war if elected, we sent them a strong message that we elected them to end the war, and now they're ignoring that message.

[PresidentObama]

37. Which is the mistake our party made in 2004.

Being too cautious. We can't be cautious. They elected us to the majority in 2006 to end this stupid war, and do it responsibly. And you can end it, and end it responsibly. Why aren't we? If we do nothing about stopping the surge, then whats our message for 08'? Yes the surge happened, but we were against it. What a campaign pitch :sarcasm:

[mtnsnake]

39. Exactly

If they don't use the tools they now have to bring an end to it, not only will they be doing us a great injustice by not following out on their obligations, but they'll be setting themselves up for a huge disappointment in 2008, like you say. Even the Republicans will be able to campaign in 2008 how the Democrats did nothing to end the war after they took control. Nothing like taking one giant step forward, only to fall way behind again and lose it all by sitting on our hands.

[blm]

34. Maybe send your concerns to Dems from anti-corruption, open government wing of

the party.

Unfortunately the coverup wing of the Dem party has most of the power, the media, and sets the overall agenda.

[bigtree]

42. the name calling is childish

I never expected Congress to be able to yoke Bush up right away. These things take time, because, our political institutions are designed for compromise more than they are geared for the type of dictating action that most of the critics of the new leadership expect. That is why our leaders in both houses have taken careful steps to try and get the broadest support for the initiatives they've advanced for votes.

There is no courage at all in trying to ram through some strident, decidedly partisan, legislative rebuke which has no chance at all in becoming law, much less achieve an up or down vote, in the face of the balance of power in both bodies.

I know that the mantra from the bulk of the critics of the leadership is that the are afraid of the politics of confronting Bush through the funding requests which are designated for Iraq. Many of those funds are not reaching the troops right now, and many of the funds which go into maintaining the perpetual deployments and the care and aid for the returning soldiers and veterans are clearly stretched to the breaking point.

The funding has to be addressed, but under the rules, spending bills have to originate in the House. If they are raised in the Senate, they are subject to a certain 'point of order' by the republican obstruction which requires 60 votes to overcome.

The House, apparently, has the opportunity to simply reject Bush's budget request out of hand and kill it right there. The problem with that approach is that it directs Bush to do NOTHING. Who expects that Bush is suddenly going to abandon his false mandate he imagines from the original IWR and slink back home? Who thinks he, or the generals who've encouraged him that something can be 'won' or gained by the escalation, give a damn about the safety, security, and well-being of the soldiers who are being killed at the rate of 2-3 a day?

What Bush would do in the face of the 'courageous' act of rejecting the supplemental appropriation is continue on with his occupation, blaming his own negligence on the visible rejection of money. I've heard the claims that the cut won't affect the troops. "There's money enough there already to pull them out" is the dominant argument. Dissent from that and you're spouting 'republican talking-points', goes the diatribe from the more venomous critics. But what control do the critics or Congress have over the dispensation of the money?

How do they guarantee that our soldiers won't be hung out to dry? If there's money there to support them in a withdrawal, there's money enough for Bush to limp them along with him in his lame-duck lunge for redemptive glory behind the continued sacrifices of our soldiers.

Who is vouching for the meme that the cuts won't hurt the troops? Rep. Kucinich? Sen. Feingold? Both of them have components of their withdrawal plans which call for action outside of the funding. Where are the votes that would propel these initiatives into law? Where is their coalition?

Who told folks that we had a majority which had the ability to just ram things through? Who told people that our majority had the ability to manipulate the levers of our democracy with impunity? Even if such an undemocratic domination of the minority was deserved and overdue, it simply is not possible to effect with the balance of power which exists.

But, we call these folks cowards for *reaching for consensus; no matter that direct confrontations are bound to achieve little more than a butting of heads.

I know there are a wide range of proposals for withdrawal which will attempt to make their way up the legislative ladder. They will either be presented with the consensus effort upcoming after the 9-11 bill debate, or they will be attached to numerous pieces of legislation as amendments. They will get their chance to gain support. But just presenting these more strident amendments for a vote doesn't make the act one of 'courage', any more than an attempt to move something forward legislatively in a bipartisan way makes those folks cowards, especially since the results face the threat of a likely presidential veto in the end.

That said, I do think that, at some point Bush has to be presented with SOMETHING which directs him in Iraq. Just turning their backs on one funding request doesn't direct him to do anything. He needs to be presented with a repealed or amended IWR which takes away his open-ended, false authority he says sanctions whatever he's doing. Along with that,I would seek another binding resolution which sets a timetable for withdrawal.

The efforts to direct Bush through the funding make sense as well, although there's no need at all for the provision in the Levin proposal which leaves troops to battle the 'Iraqi al-Qaeda'. That's a crock which will set us up for more of the same. I think that's what Sen. Feingold was talking about when he complained about the efforts last weekend.

But, most of all, the Congress needs to find a way to work together to begin to bring the bulk of our troops home this year. There are republican and Democratic sons and daughters, moms and dads in Iraq, and we can only hope that they don't wait until after the next election to do what they, themselves, know is the right thing to do, and cut their president off at the knees politically until he bends on Iraq.

Impeachment is not a far gone conclusion. I think it will come. For the Congress, it's early. They move like snails. That's the way the system was designed; to accommodate the wide divergence of views from the many diverse quarters around the nation. It is a deliberative institution which provides many levers of resistance for the minority. It is designed for compromise and our new leadership reflects that.


edit*

[mvd]

45. Locking

Again, constructive criticism of the Democratic Party is allowed, but please do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

mvd
DU Moderator