My fellow DUers: How many of our troops will die before we quit playing politics?

[Flabbergasted]

How many Iraqis will die before we accept we must end the war now?

How many people need to stand in the streets in Protest?

How many debates do we need to have before we can recognize our selfishness?

How many limbs need to be stripped from their body before we can accept defeat?

How many children need to die before we can admit our guilt?

How many appropriations do we need to pass before we can accept we have sacrificed enough?

How many?

[ends_dont_justify]

1. Too many

But I agree entirely, the games need to stop. This isn't about getting america to hate bush anymore...this is about stopping a madman who may lead this country to nuclear war (if not with iran, than someone. He's pissed off a lot of nuclear countries). It's about removing the fangs from a monster intent on tearing up the working man and the american citizen.

No amount of ideology, planning, chess moving, game playing, or political trickery is going to undo the terrors that a madman has unleashed on the world -- we don't need articulate dems who know how to get the camera to like them, we need to have strong leaders capable of wrestling this goliath to the ground.

[zulchzulu]

2. How many opportunistic charlatans will we listen to that have no real chance...

...of ending the war?

I hate the wars we are bestowing on the World with every bone in my body. I was against this set of wars and the Gulf War from the beginning.

But I also think that people like Kucinich are extending the war by voting against legislation that puts timelines and benchmarks on the war. Without realistic solutions that will pass and be veto-proof, you may as well legislate that the sky is green with purple polka dots.

We live in a democracy. We don't live in a fantasy world where we can just wish the war away and p-o-o-o-f! It's gone...

It does indeed get down to politics to end the war. Smart politics...not charlatanism.

[ProudDad]

18. You might want to check that legislation

there are NO binding timelines in that piece of carp they passed yesterday.

The war will end when those pols in Congress realize that they could lose their cushy jobs if they don't stop it. Not one minute before.

The military-industrial complex that owns their asses is doing too well. It will take mass action.

Visualize every Congressional office in Washington filled with war protesters every day of the week...

[Double T]

3. Unfortunately Many More.

[goodhue]

4. 100 a month

[goodhue]

5. So by Oct 08 that will be 1800

Not to mention the 18000 Iraqis who will be killed.
It is a shame that our party is unable to speak truth to power.

[w4rma]

6. Who's "we"? It's not our side, in general, obstructing everything. (nt)

[The Magistrate]

7. Unfortunately, Sir

The view that loudly cries up "Out Immediately!" and rejects anything in between is every bit as much 'playing politics' as the course its proponents decry. The fact is, government is conducted through politics, and governing is a political process. Striking postures in favor of things that cannot be enacted into law is political theater, and no more.

The votes to directly cut off funding for the occupation of Iraq, or to remove the present administration through impeachment and conviction, are not present in the Congress, and they cannot be brought into being by clamor on the further reaches of the left.

What has been achieved by the Democratic majority in the House is a clear declaration that the occupation of Iraq must be brought to an end. That is worth a good deal, and is a necessary opening move.

[Sparkly]

9. Thank you.

I've been trying to make those points for days.

[Flabbergasted]

10. What is wrong with asking that our troops get out right now? How many people do we need to fix

with artificial limbs? It is not unreasonable and the 100's of thousands of people that protested last week agree. OUT NOW.

We are not stopping the insurgency. We are not reducing terrorism. We are not making the world safer. We are not making things more stable. We are not creating peace. We are not advocating responsibility. We are shitting on everything this country is based on. We are playing politics.

[w4rma]

11. How can you post that as a reply to this message, considering what you already wrote

about "playing political theater"?

[Flabbergasted]

13. I'm discussing the fact that my buddy is over patching up our troops as we speak...

I may have to face his death or dismemberment for a crap war based on lies. I want him to come home now because his presence is not helping the people in Iraq.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. My husband was over there

and it was not a nice feeling

So you have a sense of urgency unfortunately not shared by 95% of the population....

Oh and politics, comes with the territory. WE ARE a political animal, Aristotle figured this out oh a long time ago... and it is time you figure this out

Screaming for our troops to get out NOW, is as much a political declaration as doing nothing...

Compromise is also the art of politics.

As to how many troops? I'll answer this for you

at least, 3,000 dead

At least, 20,000 injured'

To the Iraqis

At least 20K dead

At least 50K injured....

Does this make me happy? No

But demanding for the troops to get out now (which has zero chances of succeeding) will only mean I will need to multiply those numbers.

Your friend is a medic, he will understand this word, TRIAGE... and having practiced it... it is NEVER easy on the soul...

[The Magistrate]

15. It Depends, Sir

When it is done in a manner which declares anyone who does not raise that cry is a supporter of the war and its continuation, it is far from helpful, and alienates a great many people who in broad measure share your views and desire for the war to be terminated.

When it is done in a manner which denounces as 'pro-war' the steps actually available in the political process to commence some check of the present administration's policies, and reverse the course it is resolved on, it is, again, not very helpful, and may even be destructive.

[Flabbergasted]

16. Although I understand your point, as Democrats we are required to quit playing

the political game at some point and think about the hell people are going through. This is your choice. I understand you believe the game will lead to the best conclusion; I don't.

[ProudDad]

19. What has been "achieved", Sir or Madam

is another $100,000,000,000+ for bush's war...no strings attached...

[The Magistrate]

22. A Certain Inertia Has Been Broken, Sir

Once things are in motion, inertia is your friend, and not your foe.

The House has voted for a bill that the administration views an act of defiance. The great preponderance of people in our country view it in the same wise. The deadline it sets is most acceptable to the bulk of people who want the war terminated. Opposition to this bill, by the Republicans in the Senate, and by the Republican administration, will not be popular. What emerges from the Conference will certainly contain elements the administration has declared it must veto. That course, too, will be very damaging to the administration. It will be riskinmg gettinmg no funds at all, for there is no particular reason for the Congress to strip out items the administration finds objectionable, since these will be much more popular than the administration is, and aligned with what the voting public wants. The result will be either a lapse of funds, for which the administration will be clearly seen to be at blame for, or an acceptance of withdrawl deadlines.

[ProudDad]

24. I agree, inertia can be your friend

But don't think small, think big.

The only way to end this war soonest is IMPEACHMENT...

[The Magistrate]

26. Can You Name Me The Sixty-Seven Votes For Conviction, Sir, In The Senate?

We are grown men, Sir, and should speak to one another as grown men. It does not even qualify as wishful thinking to imagine the leaders of the administration are going to be removed before their alloted terms end.

A Bill of Impeachment would be a good deal of fun, and a useful political show. We may even see one by this coming autumn as investigations compile a damning official record, but it will not remove anyone from office, or alter the course of the occupation of Iraq one iota.

[ProudDad]

35. Well, great

enjoy paying for your war...

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. That Sir is the current poltiical realisty

we have the Majority for imepeachment (that is the House, and a simple majority)

But the resson why they have not pulled the trigger on the senate is... they don't have the 67 Senators to CONVICT

Now let me explain in simple terms what not being convicted would mean for Joe Sixpack... seee he ain't that bad, if he were, why isn't he in Jail?

Now from now until the elections those votes may materialize, but for the moment, they don't exist

Remember to pester your congress critters (and Senators)

[Ghost in the Machine]

31. This is part of what will be vetoed....

The $124 billion emergency war bill the committee approved on Friday contains a wide range of funding for health care programs in the Defense Department and Veterans Affairs departments. Funding for DOD health care programs covered by the bill includes:

$450 million for post-traumatic stress disorder/counseling.
$450 million for traumatic brain injury care and research.
$730 million to prevent health care fee increases for U.S. troops.
$20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed.
$14.8 million for burn care.
The bill increased funding for the VA's health care programs by $1.7 billion, including: click link below for more

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3178075

[The Magistrate]

33. That Will Make The Veto Even More Unpopular, Sir

It is essential to keep this all in one package, and maintain a united bloc of Democrats in the House sufficient to constitute a majority for this whole Bill.

"Not a pretty business."

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. That is my hope, Sir... to make a veto an albatross around Junior's neck

I am in this for the long haul, as I want nothing more in life right now than to see these criminals pay for their crimes and to rid our Nation of this cancer that goes by the name of PNAC and neoconservatism.

What more can I do?

[Mojorabbit]

21. This bill will be vetoed

if it even makes it through the senate so they should have made a statement. In haggling you don't start by giving up everything.You start with something they will disagree with and work in from there. There is not much to compromise with here as they gave up the bottom line to start with. So I strongly disagree.

[The Magistrate]

23. Of Course It Would Be Vetoed, Ma'am

But there is no reason to expect the next Bill would be of any different character than this one. Haggling towards a mean is not the only way these things proceed; 'take it or leave it' has an excellent record, particularly where one side needs something and the other can easily do without it. The administration needs a Bill; the Democratic majority in Congress does not....

[ProudDad]

25. Not necessarily

"the Democratic majority in Congress does not"

They are already being lavished with corporate money including that of the military-industrial complex. That pressure for the golden eggs laid by the supine Congress will only increase.

Our only hope is to make life so difficult for them if they don't end this war that they must resist their own "best interests" and bow to the will of the People....

[The Magistrate]

27. That Is Not Analysis, Sir, It Is The Bed Of Procrustes

Applied regardless of fit.

The administration needs a Bill to fund its venture in Iraq; the Democratic Congress does not have any ventures in Iraq, and has no need of such a Bill. If the administration wants one, it will have to take it on the terms offered or go without. Its veto of Bills that would have provided funds with conditions the people approve of would be sufficient to press the blame for chaotic retirement on the administration, not the House.

[The Doctor.]

28. Litigated to conclusion...

and absolutely correct.

[ProudDad]

36. Just a quick google away

"The Wall Street Journal on Monday examined how some large U.S. companies -- such as insurers and pharmaceutical companies -- have increased their campaign contributions to Democrats this year, possibly an indication that they are "starting to hedge their political bets after a decade of supporting congressional Republicans." Political action committees administered by U.S. companies will contribute an estimated $120 million to congressional candidates for the 2006 election cycle, an increase from $91.6 million for the 2002 election cycle. This year, Wyeth, FedEx, Verizon and Intel have donated the largest proportion of their campaign contributions to Democrats since 1994, when each donated more than half of their contribution to Democrats. Wyeth has donated 33.7% of company campaign contributions to Democrats for the 2006 election cycle, compared with 26.9% for the 2004 election cycle. A Wyeth spokesperson said the political parties of candidates do not "necessarily come into play" when the company makes decisions on campaign contributions. Meanwhile, MetLife has donated "a slim majority" of company campaign contributions to Democrats this year, and AIG has donated 57% of contributions to Democrats, the Journal reports (Mullins, Wall Street Journal, 6/19)."

The money starts rolling in...

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. that is why we need a publically funded

election system

For the record, if we were talking of the greens taking power, you'd see the same phenomena

[ProudDad]

42. I definitely agree with you there

Public financing of elections would not only give more good, minimally corrupted people a chance but would save the taxpayers a HELL of a lot of money.

Only $6 per person...

http://www.just6dollars.org/blog?from=10

[The Magistrate]

45. So What, Sir?

To the winners go the spoils.

It is in my view a good thing that more money goes to Democratic politicians than to their opponents. It means their camapigns are more likely to be successful than those of their opponents.

[Mojorabbit]

30. My baby sister is in the military

She did her time in Afghanistan. I am holding my breath till she retires in the next year. This war is a waste of lives. Politics for 2008 be damned (and this is what it is all about, the next election). Compromises be damned.They should have forged a bill that funds it's end and not a year more for a war that we have so obviously lost. THe generals have said it needs a non military solution. I am so pissed off I can't see straight. So, I still disagree. The bill will be vetoed. It is a moral issue. They should have voted to fund bringing the troops home not another year of war.The bill starts from a place of weakness and will only get weaker when it comes back for another run. I sure don't see them trying again with a stronger bill to bring them home.
Edited to add, instead of as you say that this puts the onus on the administration owning this war, we now ALSO own this war at least for the next year.

[The Magistrate]

34. Morality Does Not Concern Me, Ma'am

And when politicians profess concern for it, my natural reaction is one criminal law and the rules of this form bar me from fully expressing.

There is no particular reason to suspect the Bill will grow weaker in future versions. The administration is leaking prestige daily, and will have less and less heft in political struggle in coming weeks and months. The Bill is nicely and professionally calculated to gain the largest possible number of votes, and if some Democrats on both the right and left wings of the Party had shown greater sense of occassion and solidarity, would have had a margin of nearly thirty votes instead of six, which would have been a much better starting point for future pressure on the administration. Nothing is so weak, Ma'am, as a Bill that is defeated, which one along the lines you propose would have been.

[bread_and_roses]

47. It may not be the concern of politicians. It should be the concern of citizens.

This Bill has no teeth, will do nothing, and gives more cover to the war mongers in power and their corporate buds to keep fattening off blood, death, and exploitation.

Yes, a REAL Bill would have lost. So what? We've gained nothing with this one.

Calling this a "victory" is elevating spin over reality - just like this evil Cabal in power does.

And spare me your tiresome lectures on realpolitik. I work year round on practical, real politics at the local level. I know how the game is played. I also know when the stakes are too high for gamesmanship, and this is one of those times.

[The Magistrate]

49. If You Say So, Ma'am

But you have not here provided a very impressive sample. This is mere purist boiler-plate, without the least tinge of practicality about it.

[Journeyman]

8. That answer's "blowing in the wind". . .

and has been since the days of Ur . . .

[ProudDad]

20. Oh, crap!

Not another "war is inevitable" myth...

That just shows NO imagination...

[partylessinOhio]

12. War is not worth one more death - ours or an Iraqi.

If the killing stopped today there would still be this awful stain of blood on America. We will not wash that away for generations.

I hate Bush, the Neocons and the religious wing-nut zealots that have done this to my country. We all suffer for what they have done in their zest for war and killing and rapture.

[leftofthedial]

14. if house democrats have their way

at least another 18 months' worth

[ProudDad]

17. The answers

Iraqis -- Hundreds of Thousands more

People protest -- 150,000,000 in the U.S.

Debates -- You mean there are actual debates? One good one would do it.

Limbs -- About 25,467

Children -- Another Million?

Appropriations -- as many as the military-industrial complex wants.

How Many? -- Too GodDamn many!

[pnwmom]

29. The only way to quit playing politics is to bow to a dictator.

As long as we are humans trying to work together -- not following a dictator -- we will be "playing politics." There is no other way.

[unkachuck]

32. thank you....n/t

[Jcrowley]

38. K&R n/t

[CreekDog]

43. Opposing Democrats in the House is the way to end the war

Yes, that's the ticket!

Why didn't I think of that? Some of you are geniuses!

Let's divide ourselves between those who want the war to end from those who want the war to end right now.

My goodness, that's perfect, then we will have figured out how to take one majority and turn it into two, smaller, purer, minority, losing votes.

A thing of beauty, why didn't I think of it. Why didn't Nancy Pelosi think of it? Why didn't John Murtha think of it, why didn't David Obey think of it, why didn't George Miller think of it, why didn't MoveOn think of it, why didn't Kos think of it, why didn't Atrios think of it, why oh why?

[Sparkly]

44. .

:thumbsup:

[cassiepriam]

46. Dems: JUST SAY NO. NO MORE WAR.

This is not rocket science.
Be brave and stop the war now.

[CreekDog]

48. There aren't the votes to stop the war now

To think this is about bravery displays ignorance of the issue.

It's as if you are saying, "I want my way, now, NOW, NOW NOW!"

It's also not going to get you very far to insinuate that Democrats that don't vote to defund the war and withdraw troops immediately are cowards. Imagine how many minds you will change by calling them cowards.

Good strategy. Let me know how it's working.

[ClayZ]

50. No More War! K and R