Ahem!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1592374

[hfojvt]

1. well the banner made Moore as guilty as Roberts and Bush

so I guess it was about bipartisanship.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. This war belongs to the Democrats as much as it belongs to the Republicans.

Both parties are funding it and perpetuating it.

[Big Unit]

3. Emphatically Disagree

I disagree with your statement that both political parties are to blame for the fact that the war has not ended. Last November, the voters decided to place Democrats in control of Congress, but they did not place Democrats in control of passing legislation in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed, and the voters certainly didn't elect enough Democrats to override Presidential vetoes.

When war funding was last debated, the first bill that was passed did contain limitations on the President's power to indefinitely continue to fund the war, but the bill was vetoed. Since then, bills that got tough with Bush/Cheney could not make it through the Senate. What realistically could the Democratic Congress do? Keep trying to pass weaker and weaker bills until 60 votes could be found in the Senate? The bill that might have survived that process would not have limited Bush in any important way.

So, instead, the Democrats crammed an overdue minimum wage bill down the throat of the Bush/Cheney Administration, which was a bill that was much needed, and probably couldn't have been passed in a "stand-alone" fashion. Nevertheless, the Democratic Congress since then has brought relentless pressure on the White House through investigations, and through watchful, vigilant, critical analysis of the war. I suspect that the President's war-without-end will come to a head next month. It will be another tough battle politically. I cannot predict how it will come out. But on the spearpoint of whether Congress can pass a "get-tough" on the war bill will be 11 or so Republican senators who told the President that he had until Sept to see if the surge worked.

Every Democrat running for President will - if elected - end the war in Iraq. Every Republican except Ron Paul has refused to be critical of the President's war plans. I do not think it is accurate or fair to lay equal blame for the continuing Iraq War at the feet of both parties.

I grieve for the soldiers and their families who have lost limbs and loved ones this summer, and for the innocent Iraqi children and their families who have died from collateral damage or horrible mistakes. But it is this President, and the Republicans in Congress who sided with the President in refusing to pass a tough war-funding bill who are to blame.

As liberals and Democrats, we need to stand together so that we do not fragment and implode in our opposition to everything Bush/Cheney stands for. Make no misktake about next year: if we do not work together like we did last November, if we give impetus and momentum to third party candidates or indeed if we stay at home and do not vote, we will lose the presidential election next year. And we will also lose what small chance we really have to stop the climate crisis, to bring our troops home quickly, to restore our status internationally, to rebuild the United States, and bring a resolution to such huge problems as health care, education and immigration.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Go back and look at the Dem presidential candidates' positions on the war

No, they all won't end it. Hillary wants to leave troops in Iraq. The others have similar platforms. The only one who will bring ALL our troops home and really end the war is Kucinich.

And since the Democrats have voted to fund the war, it doesn't matter what they say or what they promised during their campaigns last year. Funding it is not ending it. The only Dems who can truly claim they want it to end are the ones who signed the recent letter to Bush that says they will not vote for any additional funding except funding to bring the troops home.

Ending the war was not even on Pelosi's first 100 hours agenda. And they haven't ended it. If they really wanted to they would have by this time. Pelosi is having anti-war activists arrested in her office. Claire McCaskill has also threatened arrest and refuses to see anyone who comes to her office to discuss the war. In a democracy, our elected officials are not only refusing to listen to the people, they are also putting them in jail. I don't care what party they belong to; this is wrong.

They don't want to end it. That's the plain and simple truth. That and the failure to move ahead on impeachment will cost them the White House and possibly Congress. They have definitely lost the anti-war activists.

[Big Unit]

5. Understand the Frustration

Proud, I certainly respect your position. I protested the war in Vietnam, and Adm. Loinpresser and I would have been drafted if the young people of this country had not lead this country to an anti-war/disengagement decision.

But how do you think the Democrats can force funding to end without a veto-proof majority? Earler this summer, there weren't even enough votes to get a bill through the Senate. Even if a funding bill was intentionally withheld, the President would still have had the funds at his disposal to continue the war until September at least.

When we start tearing at the throats of our friends, we have embarked on a course of self-destruction.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. They aren't even working on gaining those votes

They refuse to listen to the anti-war lobbyists who have done the research which would not only support their votes to end the war and bring our troops home but also convince other reps to vote the same way. They are not working at getting the votes they need.

It is painfuly obvious that Congress (at least the majority) doesn't WANT to end the war.

I just spent a week at a national convention with many of the lobbyists who are being shut out of our reps' offices and arrested for trying to visit them.

Congress gave the worst president ever unprecendented powers with their vote to approve FISA.

Sorry but I have lost faith in these representatives. Let's see them revoke FISA then I might trust them again.

[Big Unit]

7. The 60s Mistake

I watched a documentary last week on the History Channel I believe. This film reviewed the decade of the 60s from a music, cultural and political perspective. One portion discussed the decision of the young people who were orchestrating the national anti-war movement to attack Hubert Humphrey - who was LBJ's Vice President - and to not attack Nixon over the Vietnam War. One of the principals in that protest movement stated that he and many other anti-war activists sat out the 1968 election and did not vote. He commented that the decision to attack Humphrey, to mollycoddle Richard Nixon and not vote was a serious mistake. It was a mistake because Nixon won election by a very small margin, and didn't stop the war - in fact he escalated the war as we all know.

I submit that we should learn from history, and not make the same mistakes all over again. Bush paid no heed to the lessons of history, but we are not compelled to make the same mistakes. Sen. Obama told the VFW today that he would redeploy and bring home our troops if he were elected. Fred Thompson told the VFW today that we should NOT exit Iraq. Bush will speak tomorrow. What do you think HE will say? The Democratic candidates for president offer this country the best remedy for all the ills of the last 7 years, and to end the war. Be wise, be united. It is much easier to cut down a tree if the trunk has already been split. Do not be an agent to maintain the status quo. This country needs change, and it will not happen with a Republican president.