I challenge Democrats to simply vote down funding, instead worrying about their perception

[mtnsnake]

Instead of worrying that they'll be perceived as "being unsupportive of the troops" if they vote down funding for any of Bush's surges for the war, I challenge them to stop worrying about how they'll look and just do what they're obligated to do: End the madness by voting down funding, period, and stop pussyfooting around by offering any alternatives that have zero substance.

I don't know why they're so afraid as looking "unsupportive of the troops" if they vote against any funding for the war. They're ALREADY perceived as "unsupportive", and they're going to CONTINUE to be perceived that way, so what's there to worry about? :shrug:

[Raven]

1. There is enough $$$ to fund the troops

for another 8 months...long enough to get them out. I'm at a loss to figure out why the Dems are doing this since I think there are going to be some real consequenes for them in 2008. Maybe they want to give Bush enough rope to politically hang himself...try explaining that to a mother of some kid killed in Iraq in the next year and a half.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Monkeyman]

3. They do not have the votes to over ride

But I agree cut off the funding. THE WAR ENDS

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. Absolutely! that, and refuse to ever again appear on Faux news.

No Democrats, no liberals, no progressives - never. Let the Republic noise machine gag and die on its own vomit.

[asjr]

5. The "surge" has been instigated in order

to put Democrats on the defensive. Democrats should go for broke and stop all funding. Then we will have to pull out troops. It is a mess in Iraq and will continue to be that way whether we stay or go. We can't make right what has been going on for centuries. This administration caused the mess and should get us out.

[Merrill]

6. 153,000 dead and/or disabled troops...enough said

Washington's escalation of threats against Iran is driven by a determination to secure control of the region's energy resources

Noam Chomsky
Friday March 9, 2007
The Guardian

In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington's basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important. As was the norm during the cold war, resort to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the malign influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest of pretexts. Unsurprisingly, as Bush sends more troops to Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq - a country otherwise free from any foreign interference - on the tacit assumption that Washington rules the world.

In the cold war-like mentality in Washington, Tehran is portrayed as the pinnacle in the so-called Shia crescent that stretches from Iran to Hizbullah in Lebanon, through Shia southern Iraq and Syria. And again unsurprisingly, the "surge" in Iraq and escalation of threats and accusations against Iran is accompanied by grudging willingness to attend a conference of regional powers, with the agenda limited to Iraq.

Presumably this minimal gesture toward diplomacy is intended to allay the growing fears and anger elicited by Washington's heightened aggressiveness. These concerns are given new substance in a detailed study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism experts Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, revealing that the Iraq war "has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide". An "Iran effect" could be even more severe.

For the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance. Iranian influence in the "crescent" challenges US control. By an accident of geography, the world's major oil resources are in largely Shia areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington's worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US.

Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy Security Grid based in China. Iran could be a lynchpin. If the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously undermined the US position of power in the world.

To Washington, Tehran's principal offence has been its defiance, going back to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the hostage crisis at the US embassy. In retribution, Washington turned to support Saddam Hussein's aggression against Iran, which left hundreds of thousands dead. Then came murderous sanctions and, under Bush, rejection of Iranian diplomatic efforts.

Last July, Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion since 1978. As before, US support was a critical factor, the pretexts quickly collapse on inspection, and the consequences for the people of Lebanon are severe. Among the reasons for the US-Israel invasion is that Hizbullah's rockets could be a deterrent to a US-Israeli attack on Iran. Despite the sabre-rattling it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran. Public opinion in the US and around the world is overwhelmingly opposed. It appears that the US military and intelligence community is also opposed. Iran cannot defend itself against US attack, but it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting even more havoc in Iraq. Some issue warnings that are far more grave, among them the British military historian Corelli Barnett, who writes that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch world war three".

Then again, a predator becomes even more dangerous, and less predictable, when wounded. In desperation to salvage something, the administration might risk even greater disasters. The Bush administration has created an unimaginable catastrophe in Iraq. It has been unable to establish a reliable client state within, and cannot withdraw without facing the possible loss of control of the Middle East's energy resources.

Meanwhile Washington may be seeking to destabilise Iran from within. The ethnic mix in Iran is complex; much of the population isn't Persian. There are secessionist tendencies and it is likely that Washington is trying to stir them up - in Khuzestan on the Gulf, for example, where Iran's oil is concentrated, a region that is largely Arab, not Persian.

Threat escalation also serves to pressure others to join US efforts to strangle Iran economically, with predictable success in Europe. Another predictable consequence, presumably intended, is to induce the Iranian leadership to be as repressive as possible, fomenting disorder while undermining reformers.

It is also necessary to demonise the leadership. In the west, any wild statement by President Ahmadinejad is circulated in headlines, dubiously translated. But Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US media tend to ignore Khamenei's statements, especially if they are conciliatory. It's widely reported when Ahmadinejad says Israel shouldn't exist - but there is silence when Khamenei says that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, calling for normalisation of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a two-state settlement.

The US invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. The message was that the US attacks at will, as long as the target is defenceless. Now Iran is ringed by US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf, and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to US support.

In 2003, Iran offered negotiations on all outstanding issues, including nuclear policies and Israel-Palestine relations. Washington's response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer. The following year, the EU and Iran reached an agreement that Iran would suspend enriching uranium; in return the EU would provide "firm guarantees on security issues" - code for US-Israeli threats to bomb Iran.

Apparently under US pressure, Europe did not live up to the bargain. Iran then resumed uranium enrichment. A genuine interest in preventing the development of nuclear weapons in Iran would lead Washington to implement the EU bargain, agree to meaningful negotiations and join with others to move toward integrating Iran into the international economic system.

© Noam Chomsky, New York Times Syndicate

· Noam Chomsky is co-author, with Gilbert Achcar, of Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy

[Rydz777]

7. What the people want

We lost 15 more troops last week, and the people of this country are simply fed up with this irrational war, conceived in lies and blindly prosecuted. According to General Schoomaker it has virtually wrecked the Army, and probably the Marines too - which are worn out, both their equipment and their personnel. If the Democratic Party manages to pull our troops out of the middle of this civil war, it will be politically popular, but more important, it will be the right thing to do.

The only good thing coming out of the present mess is that it is wrecking the Republic Party. If it is permitted to continue into 2008 it can wreck the Democratic Party too. Support the troops by bringing them home NOW.

[bigtree]

8. as if that's all they were worried about

'cutting off funding doesn't direct Bush to do ANYTHING at all. It just leaves him with the original false mandate Bush has assumed from the original IWR in place to continue his occupation. If there are funds already in the budget for withdrawal as Rep. Kucinich and Sen. Feingold assume, then there is enough money for Bush to continue his occupation. (I really don't see how one can argue that the supplemental isn't necessary, and at the same time, argue that passing one would enable Bush to continue.

Something of that supplemental is going to the troops. Who are the folks who are vouching for the proposition that the troops won't be affected by the withholding of funds under the supplemental by denying the entire package? Even Kucinich accepted the 'Out of Iraq Caucus' amendment which would directly provide funds to effect their withdrawal.

Are you guaranteeing the safety, security, and well-being of the soldiers in the aftermath of such a cut-off? It's amazing how little concern is expressed for the effects of an approach which openly argues that the lack of money would force a reduction in the mission. Where do you anticipate the coercive shortfalls would occur in Iraq? Where would the effects be felt first? Where are you assuming that a command which has no compunction about keeping the troops hunkered down in sandbagged huts in the middle of the warring factions - knowing they are being killed at a rate of 1-3 a day - would feel the effects of the cut-off? How soon? To what degree would you expect Bush to tolerate our troops experiencing ANY shortfall or scarcity of resources before bending?

Why is it the most humane course to direct our attack on the occupation through the funding which goes to the troops? Would the effect be immediate? Would the effects be made apparent by those now in command and control over the forces?

How do you expect to control all of these concerns by just having our legislators vote 'no' on the funding which is intended for the troops bogged down in the middle a combat mission in Iraq? What happens to the funds for those in the region who are in supporting roles?

What do you think will be the immediate effect? Short term? Long term? *Who will suffer? Will you know?

[mtnsnake]

9. Prolonging the war by not stopping it isn't what I'd call a smart alternative

Yeah, let's sit back on our heals and worry what will happen if we stop the war. Let's worry that if we pull our troops out that chaos will break out if we do. I've got some news for you. All hell has already broken loose BECAUSE we're there and all we're doing by staying there longer is fueling the probability of more chaos and more slaughter.

[enough already]

10. Of course, all of us that feel this way are "idiot liberals"

We've been told to go sit in a corner and be quiet by the "leaders" who continue to vote for this crap. Right....

[bigtree]

12. no one forced you to stand in the way of those comments

I certainly haven't represented you in that way. You need to find someone else to flagellate you.

[bigtree]

11. of course, I never said any of that

you provided all of the dialog and proceeded to respond to it.

The leadership has clearly been moving forward; consolidating all of the competing proposals from Members of both houses and forging a compromise bill which they think can, at least, pass the House and then reconcile with the Senate action.

As I wrote, cutting off the funding (voting no on the supplemental) directs Bush to do NOTHING. Do you have any idea at all what the actual effect of such a vote would be on the troops? Are you privileged to any data or analysis of the effect? What funds are they working with now? How much of that money which has already been appropriated reached the troops? What would be the effect of such a cut-off on the safety, security, and well-being of the troops as we waited for Bush to bend?

[mtnsnake]

14. Do you want Dems to cut off funding for the war NOW with their votes? Yes or no?

If you never said any of that then you need to clear it up with a simple yes or no answer.

[bigtree]

21. It is irresponsible to cut off money intended for the troops in the field . . .

. . . without knowing what the effect of that cut-off will be on their safety, security, and well-being. Are you vouching for all of that?

[mtnsnake]

23. So your answer is "No" then. Is that correct? nt

[bigtree]

26. It is irresponsible to cut off money intended for the troops in the field

. . . without knowing the effect of that cut-off on our troops.

Do you have ANY idea what the effect would be on our troops? Do you personally have ANY way of knowing?

[mtnsnake]

31. Cutting off funding for Bush's surges is not cutting off funding for troops currently in the field

My OP again with the part you're ignoring now in bold:

Instead of worrying that they'll be perceived as "being unsupportive of the troops" if they vote down funding for any of Bush's surges for the war, I challenge them to stop worrying about how they'll look and just do what they're obligated to do: End the madness by voting down funding, period, and stop pussyfooting around by offering any alternatives that have zero substance.

I don't know why they're so afraid as looking "unsupportive of the troops" if they vote against any funding for the war. They're ALREADY perceived as "unsupportive", and they're going to CONTINUE to be perceived that way, so what's there to worry about?

...And, where I said "voting down funding, period", that would be clear that I'm talking about voting down any future votes that come up, NOT voting down what's already been allotted. Voting it down, period, is voting down his surge by just voting it down, PERIOD, and not worrying about their perception.

Jeesh.

[bigtree]

32. how many troops have been deployed since the announcement?

Could you honestly vouch that your proposal, in its present form, would guarantee the safety, security, and well-being of the troops already in Iraq?

Isn't there much more involved in their calculations than just 'perception' about their commitment to the troops? Isn't there enough evidence that these troops aren't getting the funding they need now? Didn't Murtha try to get money to adequately prepare the new recruits they are presently deploying? What about the shortfalls in the medical care which already exists? Protective gear?

Do you know exactly what is in Bush's supplemental? It's described as a 'surge' fund in the press, but it's a continuing appropriation of an existing deployment. What to leave in, what to leave out?

[mtnsnake]

33. I'm for voting down Bush's surge. You're not. I guess I'll agree to disagree

and leave it at that. You can continue to argue for voting for his surge until you're blue in the face if you want.

[bigtree]

35. The compromise legislation in the House intends to undo Bush's occupation

It is a rejection of the surge.

It takes his budget request and directs the funds to effect the troops' withdrawal by a date certain. It is the anti-surge.

I think they need to be more stringent on the 'certification' provision. Bush should be held to clear 'benchmarks' which CONGRESS has the final judgment on.

Even the withdrawal amendment by the 'out of Iraq Caucus' which Rep. Kucinich signed off on has funds for a withdrawal. The timetable is shorter, and there's no room for Bush to prove anything, which I prefer.

But the compromise legislation, if passed, would be the first direct rebuke of Bush's false authority in Iraq. And, remember, the Senate will have amendments which will be argued out in an inevitable conference.

An authorization for 'surge' money is not going to happen with this Congress. They are going to present legislation to end this thing. Then, if it reaches his desk, they'll be charged with holding him to it.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[mtnsnake]

15. It's a scarey thought, but in essence, you could be right

If they don't "appease" the voters by doing the right thing and cutting off funding, then yes, I think your claim is justified.

Thank you for your post. It's food for thought. You're making me wonder if they really are worried about their perception or not. hmmmm

[ProSense]

16. I challenge Hillary Clinton to advocate it!

During the debate over the non-binding resolution, the Republicans did advocate that the Democrats vote to cut of funding. Of course, the Repubs voted against the non-binding resolution, so I doubt they would voted to cut off funds.

[mtnsnake]

17. I challenge them ALL to advocate voting down funding. Why just Hillary?

[ProSense]

24. Because she is the only member of

Senate Democratic Leadership running for president. This would send a strong signal.

[mtnsnake]

28. Well she isn't the only member in the Senate who can vote

Last I knew there were more Democratic Senators than just Hillary in the Senate, all with votes who count just as much as hers does.

[ProSense]

29. It only takes one Senator to introduce a bill. n/t

[mtnsnake]

34. Yes, only one. Not only Hillary. nt

[Tellurian]

43. Hillary co-sponsored a Bill on June 19 2006 for troop withdrawal

"Further, Clinton co-sponsored and was one of 38 Democrats who voted in favor of a resolution by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (MI) and Jack Reed (RI), introduced on June 19, 2006, calling on the Bush administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006."

[Robbien]

19. Sen. Clinton has already said

She is going to be the one to end the war when she is elected President.

Which means she fully expects the war to be ongoing until the first part of 2009 and it implies she will make no real effort to stop it now.

[mtnsnake]

22. I believe she also said IF the war was still going on she'd do that

Did she not use the word IF?

[Robbien]

30. Not in the speech I listened to

I didn't see the speech in person but did watch it from beginning to end on cable and she distinctly said she will end the war when elected. The only if that was mentioned was when mentioning the election. Sometimes she said if elected and other times it was when elected.

[mtnsnake]

38. Looks like you listened to the wrong speech. Here are Hillary's own words:

"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070203/NEWS/202030354/1003/NEWS03

Just like I thought. IF, as in if the war is still going on...

[Robbien]

40. You label it the wrong speech

because you want to believe something different.

I know what I heard and the people I was with heard it the same way. We even discussed it at the time.

I only know how the speech we heard came across to a listening audience and it came across as that she will take action to end the war once she is elected. The impression given was action will only be delivered upon election. That is what we heard.

Your posting one sentence of one article isn't going to change that. Even the reporter of your article came away with that impression since the article was titled "Clinton promises to end war if she's elected".

So you go ahead and believe something different. The listening audience came away with the impression Clinton will deliver action only after she gets our vote.

[mtnsnake]

45. The articles had it in quotes just what she said.

When something is in quotes, "", it means that's what she actually said, not what you thought you heard.

[Robbien]

56. Usually quotes are taken from handouts given to the press by the candidate

The audience heard what they heard. No quote put in some article will change what people heard.

[enough already]

36. Nixon said the same thing when running in '68

We all saw how that worked out.

[bigtree]

37. he claimed to have a 'secret' plan

hers is readily available for discussion

[mtnsnake]

39. Same thing as what? What Hillary said or what Robbien said?

It's already been debunked that Hillary never said it with the same meaning that Robbien said she meant. See my above post with her exact words.

Feel free, though, to show me the transcripts of Nixon's speech and Hillary's and we'll see if they really said the same thing or not.

[Forkboy]

18. They needed this message six years ago

But I'd take better late than never right now.

[mtnsnake]

20. Only now they have the power

...and they're all of a sudden worried about their perception that they'll be perceived as "unsupportive of the troops".

[bigtree]

25. There's no proof they have the 'power' to end the occupation by merely cutting off the funding

There's no guarantee that Bush wouldn't just limp our troops along to continue his original false mandate he assumes from the original 'authorization'.

But, you don't seem worried at all about the effect such a funding cut-off will have on the troops. Do you have evidence that that cut-off will not affect their safety, security, or well-being, much less, proof that Bush would back off of the occupation any sooner than the mandate in the new compromise proposals?

[Forkboy]

27. Frustrating,isn't it?

I wish they surprise me just once and show some unified courage.There's a handful who have a spine and remind me why I used to feel proud to be a Democrat,but not nearly enough.

[blm]

42. Have you contacted Hillary about this? What did she say?

.

[Tellurian]

46. Hillary has already submitted a Troop Reduction Act

...Hillary has been actively supporting getting the troops home since June of 06'

February 17, 2007

Clinton Plan to End War:

Reject the President's Escalation; Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq; Begin Redeploying Our Troops; Enables President to End War Before Leaving Office

Introduces the Iraq Troop Reduction & Protection Act of 2007

Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton renewed her call on President Bush to reverse course and endorse the plan she outlined several weeks ago that would cap the level of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number prior to his escalation plan, and begin the long overdue phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq beginning in 90 days. Senator Clinton outlined her plan when she returned last month from her third trip to Iraq and is formally introduced the legislation yesterday.

"I came back from Iraq more determined then ever to stop the President's escalation of troops into Iraq, and to start the long overdue redeployment of troops out of Iraq," Senator Clinton said. "The Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act that I proposed last month and introduced this week caps the number of troops in Iraq at the level before the President's escalation. It would be against the law to send more. The legislation also protects our troops who are performing so heroically, by making sure they aren't sent to Iraq without the body armor and training they need - empty promises from the President just aren't enough anymore. And it calls for the phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. I've been pushing for this for almost two years. Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in ninety days or we will revoke authorization for this war. This plan is a roadmap out of Iraq. I hope the President takes this road. If he does, he should be able to end the war before he leaves office."

The Iraq Troop Protection & Reduction Act of 2007 presents a comprehensive approach to Iraq that halts the President's escalation policy and provides an alternative strategy in Iraq with the goal of stabilizing the country so American troops can redeploy out of Iraq. Senator Clinton's legislation puts real pressure on the Iraqi government, requiring the Iraqis to make political progress or lose funding for their military and reconstruction, require the Bush Administration to begin a phased redeployment and convene an international conference within 90 days or a new Congressional authorization would be required to remain in Iraq. Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of funds to send troops to Iraq unless they have the proper equipment and training. If the President were to follow the provisions in this legislation then the United States should be able to complete a redeployment of troops out of Iraq by the end of his term.

A Summary of the legislation:

# STOPPING THE PRESIDENT'S ESCALATION OF THE WAR: This legislation would cap U.S. troop numbers in Iraq at the January 1, 2007 level - prior to the announcement of the troop escalation by President Bush. It would require Congressional authorization to exceed the cap.

# ENDING THE BLANK CHECK FOR THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT: Recent press reports have indicated that U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces may be infiltrated by Iraqi militias and thus U.S. funds may have been used to train the very people that our men and women in uniform are fighting. In order to exert leverage on the Iraqi government, the legislation would cut off funds for Iraqi security forces, including private contractors as well as reconstruction funds within 90 days unless the President certifies that the Iraqi government has met certain conditions. The legislation would require that the Iraqi government meet a number of conditions, including:

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are free of sectarian and militia influences;

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are assuming greater responsibility for security in Iraq;

• The government of Iraq provides for an equitable distribution of the oil revenues of Iraq;

• There has been significant progress made in political accommodation among the ethnic and sectarian groups in Iraq.

If Congress disagrees with the President's certification, Congress would have 60 days to "disapprove" of the Presidential certification resulting in a cutoff of funds for the Iraqi government.

# STARTING PHASED REDEPLOYMENT AND INVOLVING COUNTRIES IN THE REGION IN THE FUTURE OF IRAQ: The legislation requires the U.S. begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops in 90 days or the authority of the use of force would cease. Specifically it requires that a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of:

• Training Iraqi security forces;

• Providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;

• Protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and

• Participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.

The legislation also requires that the United States has convened or is convening an international conference so as to:

• More actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors;

• Promote a durable political settlement among Iraqis;

• Reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq;

• Encourage more countries to contribute to the extensive needs in Iraq; and

• Ensure that funds pledged for Iraq are forthcoming.

# PROTECTING OUR TROOPS SENT INTO IRAQ: The legislation would prohibit funds from being spent to send troops to Iraq unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the troops being deployed are adequately equipped and trained for their mission in Iraq.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269481&&

more her on her War efforts here:

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/iraq/

[gulliver]

41. It would divide the country and create more wars.

Bush and the Republicans would claim that the Dems lost the war. It's a crazy game we are in with little Bush. He screwed the pooch and can't admit it, but he is technically the President of the United States. And he is the lead bungler of a huge movement of numbskulls and crooks who, like him, will never admit they created pure disaster while in power.

I think we have to stay while a significant number of war supporters in the United States (plus bungler boy, Cheney, and the crooks) have any shred of credibility left. Nobody says that's a good thing. Thousands have died and we have spent ourselves blue to create this historic disaster for our country under Republican leadership. This is a cup of poison we have to drain to the dregs. There must be no mistake that it really was poison, that it really was Republican philosophy in the cup, that it really hurt us.

People are dying, not just for a mistake, but for mass madness. It won't learn any way but the hard way, IMO.

[mtnsnake]

44. Good post...

Bush and the Republicans would claim that the Dems lost the war

They absolutely would. It's the first thing I thought about when Bush first proposed his ridiculous surge...that he was only doing it with hopes of putting the Democrats between a rock and a hard place.

IMO, his surge proposal is a clever Rovian ploy that has temporarily saved his ass, unfortunately. He knows that if Democrats vote it down, they'll be blamed for losing the war when we finally pull out. "If the Dems didn't vote down funding for my surge, we would've beat those terrorists. We lost to the terrorists because of the Dems!"

At the same token, he knows that if the Dems DON'T vote his surges down, that we'll be eaten alive in 2008. You can take it to the bank that Republicans will use it against us in 2008 that the Democrats had the power to do something about the war but couldn't come up with a plan to do a damn thing. This is why, IMO, we need to stop worrying about how we'll be perceived if we vote down funding for Bush's surges. Instead of worrying about getting blamed for losing the war, or about looking "unsupportive of the troops", we just need to do what's right and vote down funding for any future funding proposals for his stupid surges, surges which would only serve to prolong the madness.

[AtomicKitten]

47. Cutting off funding would be political suicide for the Democrats.

Why do you think the GOP and WH are constantly daring them to do it? And it would be ineffective if they cut off funding because there is already a disposable wad in the Pentagon at Junior's disposal, monies already allocated by Congress.

The Dems don't have the votes to cut off funding and the end net result will be they will suffer the political consequences of a failed effort - which could very well lead to putting the GOP back in charge of Congress and holding the WH in 2008 which is bad for America.

IMO the best way to stop the war is to start hamstringing the administration by imposing legislative restrictions on troop levels, specifically what the money is spent on, deadlines, etc. and enforce them.

[mtnsnake]

49. On the contrary, if they vote YES to fund Bush's surge, it's also political suicide

as well, and it's plain wrong besides.

I realize they're caught between a rock and a hard place with these proposed surges by Bush, but if Democrats can't muster up the guts to vote no to the surges, then IMO Republicans will walk away with the elections in 2008 because they'll say that Democrats never followed through with any plan to end the war and the voters will agree. We can't just sit on our hands and do nothing because we're scared of how we'll be perceived or portrayed. Democrats need to stop being pushed around, whether it's by Republicans themselves or by their own fear of what might happen to their image if they vote no to Bush's surges.

[AtomicKitten]

50. The problem with that

... is that Junior has ALREADY put extra troops in place, cutting off the Dems at the bend, ergo the Dems would in fact be cutting off funding to troops already there.

It's a dicey proposition any way you look at it. I agree courage is needed, but thoughtful strategy is absolutely mandatory in outplaying the bastards.

[mtnsnake]

51. The sad thing is

that we just do not know what thoughtful strategy is. If our people had any idea, they would've foreseen this move months ago and had an answer to it. Instead, they're at a complete loss to act, one way or the other.

Bottom line: As much as I hate to admit it, the surge proposal by Bush was one of the most brilliant enemy tactics I've ever seen of putting Democrats into a position where they're going to come out of it looking WORSE, no matter which way they go about it. Democrats are afraid to vote against funding the surge for fear of looking like unsupportive traitors or something...and they're going to end up getting kicked in the ass for voting FOR that very same funding. When it comes to playing chess, the Repukes fucking own us. When will we ever learn to think ahead.

[HuffleClaw]

48. a UNITED front on this issue could work

but i'm not holding my breath waiting for it. they know the administration and its corporate media lackeys would then blame them for 'not supporting the troops' but also for the failing war. its a tossup as to how the public would react.

[AZBlue]

52. That would be handing the GOP the '08 elections on a silver platter.

Can't risk it.

[dekerivers1]

55. This is right on

Dems could have stopped the war from the Minority - now in the Majority they won't stop it either.

Poster is right on .... its not about the troops, stopping the war, etc ... its about elections and power.

Time for a 3rd party that will put the interst of the nation over their own.

[TwilightGardener]

53. That's the sad thing--there is no good solution--people are going to

die either way, either our soldiers by staying, or Iraqis by our leaving. I will forgive the Dems in Congress for taking their time to think this through and debate it. There is a reason for their squeamishness about cutting funds and precipitous withdrawal, and I doubt it's all for self-serving political reasons.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Bush will find a way to fund them, remember he is above the law

If it comes down to signing the federal budget with a signing statement saying "I can use any of this money on Iraq", he'll do that.