Any DEM that votes for a "surge" needs to be branded with a Scarlet Letter!

[RiverStone]

...which denotes forever that he/she voted in total disregard of the mandate We The People set forth last November.

The blogosphere would post, circulate, and remember their names to such an obvious degree; that said politician would never, ever be elected again to public office as a DEM.

I can barely understand why even a rethug would vote to increase funding/troop levels for the insane, morally bankrupt, and failed BushCo war machine; but a few still kiss ass or are in debt to corporate war dollars or drank the same kool-aid that keeps one in a permanent delusional state.

But for a DEM to vote for a surge at this time is simply inexcusable. This truism IMHO, carries even more weight now that we are the party setting the agenda in Congress....finally!

Lets do what we need to continue to care for the brave men/women already in the field; and do all we can to set a timetable (thanks Russ Fiengold) to bring them home.

[lapfog_1]

1. The Scarlet "W"???

[pnwmom]

2. Is there going to be a vote of some sort?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. "scarlet letter" almost makes you sound sarcastic.

There are very few black and white issues.

The War in Iraq is one of them.

[RiverStone]

7. Oh, would never want to sound sarcastic about Iraq

The phrase "Scarlet Letter" has come to have a metaphorical meaning relating to a mark of shame that an individual is forced to wear.

per wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter

One of the few things I remember from my High School English Lit class :) As per my original post, I take any vote in support of this Iraq madness very seriously, and it would be a permanent mark of stupidity, shame, etc.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Yes, I know the origin.

That's why it's often used sarcastically, it's a draconian, puritanical punishment for something that's not even a crime.

[novalib]

4. ANYONE Who Votes To Continue FUNDING

Anyone who votes FOR continued FUNDING of this ILLEGAL and IMMORAL WAR of AGRESSION needs to be held accountable some how!!!!!

Every DAMN DOLLAR used to FUND the WAR MUST be approved by an act of CONGRESS!!!!

Congress voted NOT to continue FUNDING the war in VIETNAM, and THAT IS HOW that WAR OF AGGRESSION ended!!!!!

[shain from kane]

5. Out, damned spot. Blood on their hands.

[madinmaryland]

6. Lieberman already has the scarlett kiss!!

[RiverStone]

8. Yep. Turncoat - branded as such for life.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. What vote? Where?

What piece of legislation are you talking about?

[RiverStone]

15. No legislation to stop it - so I've since learned.... damn it.

It seems I confused all that talk of "opposition" with folks in Congress actually being able to do something about the surge. Looks like we CAN'T VOTE at all...so I've been corrected.

See POST #14

Thanks~

[mmonk]

10. Surge dems are

bushleague.

[The Magistrate]

11. No Vote Will Be Involved, Sir

It is an Executive decision, quite outside the Congress. The Republicans did pass the military appropriations bill for the up-coming year, and so money is available for the action without any need for passing a bill in the coming months.

This is going to happen, and the doing will be a disaster for the Republicans.

[RiverStone]

14. Thanks for the clarity - tho I wonder when Congress expresses "opposition", is it in name only?

Thanks Magistrate for the enlightenment. Speaking for myself (and maybe others on DU) the issue of "can we do a damn thing about the surge" is a confusing one because of stories like the one I've referenced below. It points the examples of: Harry Reid shuts the door on a troop increase, that there is outright "opposition" in Congress for it, and that Nancy and Steny are both opposed to increasing troop levels. Hearing that language suggests to me that by expressing opposition, we DEMS can do something about it; and yet you and a couple of others have educated/informed me that this Executive decision of vast stupidity is totally outside Congressional oversight or action???

What a bummer. So our new DEM Congress is powerless to stop it then?

Congress less than keen on Iraq 'surge'
By James Gerstenzang, Times Staff Writer
December 23, 2006

WASHINGTON — The leader of the Senate Democrats, Harry Reid of Nevada, seemed to open the door Sunday to supporting a temporary increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. Two days later, he shut it.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) returned from two days in Iraq and stated his opposition to a so-called troop surge. "It would create more targets," he said.

As President Bush considers whether to temporarily boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, few members of Congress are stepping forward to forcefully promote the idea. So far, the political response has mostly been silence, skepticism or outright opposition.

Bush is considering adding as many as 30,000 troops to the force of about 140,000 already in Iraq, but he has not committed to the idea. He is expected to launch a new Iraq strategy, which he calls a "new way forward," in early January. That would coincide with the Democrats taking majority positions in the House and Senate after a midterm election that was widely interpreted as rejecting the president's conduct of the Iraq war.

Members of Congress have limited reach in shaping day-to-day policy in Iraq. The effect of their votes on spending for the war will play out only in months and years, and the president has demonstrated time and again his readiness to buck the tide of the Democrats' opposition.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-surge23dec23,1,5519126.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

[LSK]

12. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3044377