The Dems who voted "No" on this Iraq bill did so in good conscience

[WilliamPitt]

I'm glad this bill passed, but I also feel as these 'no' voters do: this bill has a few massive loopholes that makes it more of a political broadside than an actual solution. To wit: the troops can stay after the fall of 2008 if they are "training Iraqi poilice" or "killing al Qaeda agents," which is essentially the surface description of what they're doing today.

The supplemental spending bill would continue to pay for the U.S. mission in Iraq and would authorize that mission at least for 12 more months and possibly longer. The bill tries to limit the length of deployment of Army soldiers to 365 days in Iraq and of Marines to 210 days. But it permits President Bush to waive those restrictions. It also permits U.S. forces to be kept in Iraq beyond the bill's August 2008 exit target date if they are training Iraqi soldiers or if they are engaging in missions to kill or capture members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17728295/

The Senate now has to deal with an "Iraq withdrawal" bill, at least in name. That's a political victory and a step forward, to be sure. But nothing in this bill is going to solve the larger problem.

These "no" votes were cast in good conscience.

[helderheid]

1. Thank you Will

[mod mom]

71. I second that response! nt.

[LSK]

2. The Bill will get hacked to death anyways in the Senate

[jackstraw45]

3. Figures...a bill that does NOTHING to change the current situation...

Lots of TALK and NO action.

Sound familiar?

[LSK]

5. 60 votes for cloture, 60 votes for cloture...

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I'm sorry this bill passed but am thankful for the few who voted no.

There is no justification for providing more money for more war. Everyone who voted yes has once again participated in a war crime.

[Frances]

8. What does your name (Warren Stupidity) mean?

[helderheid]

9. war and stupidity

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Or war on stupidity, or nothing at all.

Or perhaps it means I am a stupid person who stupidly thinks that providing more money for war means more war.

[Clark2008]

13. I thought it was more like War ON Stupidity.

Either way's good.

[helderheid]

14. It's not my name - I was just guessing! :)

[acmavm]

6. Whatever. How's it going to be paid? America, at least those

now paying all the taxes, is pretty well tapped out.

[Duer 157099]

16. We subsidize the war by buying poisen wheat from China

Haven't you heard? It's the latest compromise.

[acmavm]

24. Whatever. Once upon a time there would be rioting in the streets

and I mean big time rioting if the government had started an immoral war and then was bankrupting the country paying for it...

oh yeah, Viet Nam. And we did riot. And it did some good.

Ah, for the good old days!

[WilliamPitt]

31. Really?

I remember one riot in '68 in front of the DNC.

But that came after Bobby and MLK were murdered, after the war had been going on for more than ten years, after many tens of thousands of troops had been killed and wounded.

In other words, after a hell of a lot more wretchedness than we've endured so far (hard as that is to believe).

It was also started by the cops.

And it guaranteed the election of Nixon.

Your anger is deserved, to be sure, but methinks you mythologize something that was, in fact, rare and damaging.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. "I remember one riot "

Gee I attended about a dozen or so between 68 and 73.

[WilliamPitt]

39. Riots?

Explain.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. There were many protests just as riotous as chicago '68

Some were larger some were smaller. Your statement that the 68 DNC protests were an anomaly is just wrong. For example, the protests that broke out nationwide in 1970, including the shootings at Kent and Jackson State, far exceeded the 'riot' in Chicago.

[acmavm]

38. What I call a riot is everytime the police met protesters with

tear gas and people went to jail.

And you really think the number of dead bodies count? And maybe we need a little more 'wretchedness'? And that the people taking to the streets guaranteed Nixon's election? Idiots believing liars elected Nixon. The protests and the investigations is what drove him out.

Do you have a tipping point for when the citizens of this couhtry should take to the streets for what is right? How long until we're there, if I might ask?

[WilliamPitt]

44. You tell me

You're posting on a forum instead of rioting, so I assume neither of us have reached the violence tipping point.

Right?

[acmavm]

61. NO, I (and apparently you either) have not reached maximum

indignation and anger (yet).

But what's your point? It seems from the original post that it's understanding and sympathy for the dems who didn't have the dignity or decency to go along with this amendment. Who would just rather let things drift along like they have been for how many years is it now? Four?

What amazed me is your lack of knowledge about the protests and riots of the Viet Nam era.

[Frances]

47. I was very hopeful that all of the rallies and speeches

against the Vietnam War meant that the country was recognizing the futility of wars, especially wars against countries that we didn't understand.

But things did not turn out the way I hoped. Nixon was elected and then re-elected President. Carter came in for 4 years, primarily as a reaction against Nixon.

But then we had Reagan for 8 years and Bush for 4 more. Reagan was so popular that he achieved exactly what GE wanted: the corporationism of America. And middle-class Americans loved him, even though they lost out economically and environmentally.

The only reason the Republicans lost in 92 was because Ross Perot siphoned off votes. Bill Clinton had an unusually magnetic personality and so he defeated the old, tired Dole in 96.

In 2000 the corporate world united with the fundamentalists to give Bush enough votes to make his way into the White House. (Of course, Gore really won the election.)

My point is that politics is a chess game. Our opponents are very clever and willing to keep power at any cost. I think that Code Pink-type activities play into their hands and, in the long run, cause people who believe in democracy to lose power.

I think that defeating the corporists requires brain power and long term strategy.

[demobabe]

72. That's one heck of a memory, Will

Since you were born in 1971. Pre-prenatal intelligence!

Just kidding with you... Couldn't resist that one.

;)

[bdamomma]

36. Power in Numbers, it does mean something you know.

[a kennedy]

42. I love the smell of teargas in the morning......

sorry, it's just this country is acting so different then during Vietnam, I was gassed plenty of times in Madison, WI and I paid my dues then and now. It's just sad really I'm glad it passed, but it does have way to much pork in it. But I guess that's how the game of American politics works, vote for such and such bill and I'll give you all the pork you want. :cry: :cry: :cry: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[nomatrix]

74. Just a bit of history on the Vietnam protests in WI

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-040/?action=more_essay

"During the 1960s, the University of Wisconsin-Madison gained a reputation as one of the nation's most radical campuses. Students and professors began to organize teach-ins on the war in 1965. The teach-ins were large forums for discussion between students and faculty about the war. Students marched to protest the Vietnam War, burned draft cards, and confronted army recruiters. In October of 1967, UW students protested against the makers of the weapon napalm, Dow Chemical Company, who were recruiting at the Madison campus. The resulting police action and violent confrontation helped to radicalize many formerly apolitical students. The October riot was part of an anti-Dow protest that had begun months before the company's representatives arrived on campus and would have long-lasting effects.

Another, more disturbing, event took place on August 24, 1970, at UW-Madison's Sterling Hall, home to the Mathematics Research Center, a U.S. Army-funded facility which many protesters believed contributed to the death and destruction in Vietnam. A group of young men known as "The New Years Gang" detonated a bomb outside the east wing of Sterling Hall, killing physics researcher Robert Fassnacht and injuring four others. While many feared that the bombing would escalate tensions and encourage more violent protest, the bombing actually helped to discredit the peace movement on campus."


It was a different war because the of draft, the thousands killed, the news coverage, the civil rights movements, and the hippie culture (sex, drugs & rock and roll)
Almost everyone knew someone who went to Vietnam. Your number could be pulled in the lottery draft if you were unlucky enough to be born in those vulnerable dates. That affected the HUGE baby boomer generation of 27 million men who came of age from 1964 to 1973.
A majority of them were not drafted due to college, professional, medical or National Guard deferments. Only 40 percent were drafted and saw military service. A small minority, 2.5 million men (about 10 percent of those eligible for the draft), were sent to Vietnam.
Working class heroes.

As long as the military industrial complex controls all of the politicians, there will always be a war somewhere.

[a kennedy]

75. I know of this nomatrix, I lived it, I was a dental assistant student

at MATC at the time, and all my college friends were going to UW Madison. I walked, I screamed until I couldn't talk anymore, and I had my friends die in Vietnam....... I knew it all and I hated it. :cry: :cry: :cry:

[LSK]

43. I took to the streets last Saturday, was I supposed to become violent?

Not sure what turning over cars has to do with ending the war thou...

[Warren Stupidity]

55. No, but I think civil disobedience that may result in violence

appears to be the only avenue open for the people of this nation to do anything to end this war.

[EFerrari]

7. Here are the toothless gums:

Length of Deployment. Requires the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and
avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of 365 days for the Army and 210
days for the Marines. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to
Congress detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit’s extended deployment is in the
interests of national security.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Don't worry we can trust dumbass, pelosi said so.

I am truly sorry that the end result of the house-cleaning we did in november is another two years of war. It is pathetic.

[EFerrari]

60. Never give up. n/t

[liberalnurse]

11. Yes they did!

PDA Caucus Democrats!!!!!!!!!!!:loveya: :grouphug: :woohoo:

[helderheid]

15. Woolsey sounds like she is about to break down in tears right now.

[Duer 157099]

21. c-span? I must go turn it on

I just got off the phone with her office, telling them how GODDAMNED PROUD I am to be represented by her (I didn't actually swear at the staffer, though) :D

[helderheid]

23. She's not talking anymore - sorry you missed her!

[Duer 157099]

26. Ahh. but the wonders of the DVR cable box....

I can rewind up to 45 minutes, sort of like time travel

I made sure the channel was on c-span in case I heard about something I needed to go back and look at... :D

[helderheid]

29. Good job!

[Duer 157099]

40. Just watched what she said, and I have to take exception to a couple

things:

1) I wish she had not said that our troops were being "targeted by terrorists"

2) She said the the people elected dems last November to end the Iraq war -- I thought we elected them to provide some desperately needed oversight of the Bush administration in general, not just about Iraq.

I think I need to speak with her office more often...

[mmonk]

17. Thank you for that.

I was getting tired of taking a verbal beating here.

[helderheid]

19. I was shocked by some DUers responses.

[mmonk]

30. Thanks for the support.

[helderheid]

32. Same to you!

:hug:

[redqueen]

18. I want to say "GRR ... rasserfrassin Blue Dogs!"

But I won't...

[EFerrari]

58. So, that's how you spell that word.

:)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

20. They took a stand for their convictions and I respect that

However, I also respect their convictions so perhaps that makes it easier for me to understand.

[robinlynne]

22. well put. I am completely against the bill because it continues the war, but also glad

it passed because it is a tiny bit of something. It is hard to explain these 2 feelings, and you did it.

[Oreo]

25. While it's not the bill we wanted

It's the biggest step the Dems have taken to show the American people that we're trying to end the war.

It gives money to Veteran and Troop Health care.

While this may not be a huge hurdle toward ending the war it is politically huge as far as showing the people that Republicans are against our troops.

Kos had a good point yesterday listing a bunch of headlines. And the common sheeple are reading them saying the Dems ARE trying to end the war.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/22/204516/706
US Democrats press deadline for Iraq pullout
Iraq pullout measures moves with war bill
US House opens debate on US withdrawal from Iraq
House Democrats seek votes for Iraq exit timetable
Dems labor for sure majority on pullout
Iraq pullout measure moves ahead
After 3 decades, Congress again tries to end a war
Dems seek votes to order pullout from Iraq

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. “In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.” Gandhi

I applaud those courageous few who voted against the bill and the war.

[mondo joe]

34. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Voltaire

I applaud the Democratic congress for making more progress in a few months than we have had since the damn war started.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Too bad the "good" continues to fund the war and does nothing to stop it;.

[whoneedstickets]

46. This is simply untrue...

and an unfair accusation toward DUers with a sense of how politics works in the real world.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. Ok fine how exactly does funding the war stop it?

I realize us idiots keep thinking that funding a war enables it. Perhaps you can explain exactly how funding the war stops it.

[bigtree]

28. There's nothing in the bill that precludes them from opposing that request

with another resolution.

Also, I don't think that there will be any al-Qaeda in Iraq for anyone to justify any significant military presence after the withdrawal date. There were reports this month which had Maliki claiming progress against those elements in Iraq.

The 'no' votes were cast in good conscience. But they can't argue that a 'no' vote would have prevented ANY of the concerns you raise here, as Bush would have been directed to do NOTHING if their stance had been adopted by the majority.

This bill is a step toward bring our troops home and ending the occupation. Together with the Senate action, there will eventually be crafted a bill which makes that happen.

[mmonk]

65. Since when is their justification real?

"Also, I don't think that there will be any al-Qaeda in Iraq for anyone to justify any significant military presence after the withdrawal date."

Remember WMD's?

[bigtree]

66. I think Congress will step up and challenge the WH/Pentagon assertions

when they report to them. That's the purpose for opening the process. Making them come back to Congress and explain their actions will then allow Americans to weigh in on their justifications, instead of the automatic process that's now in place. The only grounds it appears they leave Bush to extend deployments on a unit-by-unit basis is one of national security. That should be easy enough to determine whether he has a case or not.

Remember, this isn't the republican Congress governing with their eyes wide shut.

[leftofthedial]

33. almost nothing the congress is doing is "in good conscience"

they are jockeying for post-2008 position more than anything.

[blondeatlast]

41. Must you always muddy the water with an explanation of the politcal playbook

and protocol?

(I, for one, thank you.)

[whoneedstickets]

45. Bush is still a LONG way from getting the $....

I understand the No votes and the desire to defund immediately, but this vote put Democrats on firm ground for the next stages of the battle to end this war. Bush is still a long way from his $.

There is still great ambivalence in the general public about a precipitous withdrawal, about the possible appearance that America 'lost' this war (as true as it might be it's hard to swallow). Our party needed to look firm but reasonable on the path to terminate the US occupation of Iraq.

Bush can't say 'We didn't support the troops' since there are numerous pro-soldier provisions including deployment limits and veteran's care. He WILL say 'we are sending a signal of defeat or weakness to our opponent', so we better have a rejoinder like "No, we are sending a signal of growing responsibility to the Iraqi government" AND "Fulfilling the desire of the American public to bring a responsible end to this ill-advised war" AND STICK TO THE MESSAGE.

This is going to be a tough battle in the Senate, we NEED to get on the case of those Thug senators in BLUE states (Like Norm Coleman in MN) and put pressure on them to abandon the WH on this time limit provision. Make it clear they are vulnerable on this issue. There are more Thug senators up for re-election in 08 than Dems and some are vulnerable given their home-state vote in 06.

Once the Senate passes something then we need to ensure that the House leadership stands firm through the reconciliation process.

If Bush vetoes the bill, THEN we shift to the defund immediately tactic by refusing to send a bill -- this will be an ugly fight.

[Hissyspit]

48. Yes: Barbara Lee. Maxine Waters. Dennis Kucinich.

Any questions?

[bryant69]

49. A vote can be cast in good conscience and still be wrong however

This is likely to be a problematic period for DU and the Leftists/Liberals in general, because we are starting to get power. It's easy enough to force unity when you can't do anything anyway, but now we are starting to set the direction. And it's clear that, even here at DU, we have widely divergent views on which way to go.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[EFerrari]

59. But isn't that what sets us apart from the Borg?

I love DU, lol.

[Solly Mack]

50. I agree...nothing in the bill will solve the larger problems

[The Magistrate]

51. The State Of Their Consciences, Mr. Pitt, Is Of No Importance

It was important this Bill pass, and important that it pass with the greatest possible number of votes. These people, whether 'ultras' or 'blue dogs', behaved in a foolish and self-indulgent manner that is beneath contempt.

[merh]

56. That is how I see their vote.

thank you for your post :hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

67. Sir, have you seen the news?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Perhaps you might care to reconsider your opinion in the face of new facts?

Or perhaps not. That's up to you of course.

[EFerrari]

82. My friend, I heartily disagree. n/t

[tiptoe]

52. If pre-war intel & 9/11 frauds are investigated & exposed , the spending bill should be revisited.

[Beelzebud]

53. I disagree with them on voting no, but I agree with your assessment.

These are good people, not "the enemy".

[lizbitchwitchy]

62. What is the official title of the bill as it stands now

Does anyone know? I would like to read the text for myself. From what I can tell from the linked commentary on it, it's just another political game -that does absolutely nothing to change the situation.

This is creative writing at it's finest folks, I am certain of it. It's just political bull - staged to continue on with this farce that there are two parties with two different agendas - and maybe there are two different agenda but none of them are ours.

Even this statement: as Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., conceded defeat. "I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war," is not true. It Doesn't put a concrete DATE ON ANYTHING - loop holes for sure. I am sick of it -

This country is in dire need of good leadership - it's not coming out the current rif raff - We could use a bunch more McKinny's and a few Jimmy Carters - because these jokers have got to go.

Meanwhile back in Iraq - the blood keeps spilling - the innocent people keep dying - They play political freakin games while people keep dying - IT's NOT GAME TIME - KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BLOOD SPILL PEOPLE!

[lizbitchwitchy]

63. One more suggestion

Since these people have such a difficult time creating the bill that does what we want done - you know, we the people! Why don't we write the freakin thing and they can just vote on it - No more loop holes, no more playing games while others die - this is the bottom of the barrel - thes are our moral leaders - I think I have officially reached the pit of despair over this as it is the HEIGHT of IN-ACTION!

[EFerrari]

77. Welcome to DU, lizbitchwitchy.

:)

[lizbitchwitchy]

79. Thanks sfexpat2000

I saw your bio and live in the same area as you - want to go camp out at Pelosi's house with about 30 code pinkers? I'm seriously thinking that may be just the right outlet for the curse words that are bubbling up and getting caught in my throat - in dire need of an outlet!

[EFerrari]

80. I'm working support at the die in tonight. If you go, I'll be the one

wearing black. :)

[bvar22]

64. The WAR rolls on,

The Profiteers continue to reap HUGE profits from the Deaths & Maimings of Innocents.

The ONLY thing that has changed is that the Democrats now OWN a piece of this WAR.

Those here who mistakenly believe that this bill somehow holds the bush* & the NeoCons accountable have forgotten the lessons of the IWR.

Today was no victory for the Democrats (except those who profit from the Iraq War).
Today was a victory for the War Profiteers.

Today was NOT a "first step". Today was capitulation to the BIG WAR MACHINE.
Today was not about "Supporting the Troops", or a step toward PEACE.
Today was about keeping the $MONEY$ pouring into the pockets of the few.

I stand with Dennis Kucinich today. I stood with him and Paul Wellstone in 2003.
NOTHING has changed except ownership of the WAR!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[MaggieSwanson]

70. Right on.

Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

Today was no victory for the Democrats (except those who profit from the Iraq War).
Today was a victory for the War Profiteers.

x(

[tom_paine]

68. So very true, WP. K & R!

:patriot:

[WinkyDink]

69. Then it remains possible that some Republican "nays" were identical in motive.

[Faryn Balyncd]

73. In at least 1 case that is true - Ron Paul spoke for defunding the war in his speech on the house...

In at least 1 case that is true - Ron Paul spoke for defunding the war in his speech on the house floor:

.....Here’s a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home.

If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families--many on their second or third tour in Iraq--feel about it.

The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public. We’re so concerned about saving face, but whose face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the Constitution—and avoid wars that have no purpose.

The claim that it’s unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent........

(snip)

.....Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.

Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote no.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr032007.htm

John Duncan may be another Republican who voted "nay" for the same reason as the progressive Democrats. (Duncan, like Paul, also has opposed the war from the beginning, including opposing the IWR.)

Walter Jones and Wayne Gilchrest were the only 2 Republicans to vote "yes".

[LittleClarkie]

76. That often doesn't seem to hold much water here

Votes disagreed with made in good conscience, that is. Obviously those we disagree with are closet Republicans or cowards or both. Simple really. All so clean and binary.

[kath]

78. Thanks for so many good threads today, Will.

Too bad most of 'em got locked.

And, WTF?, now they don't just lock them, they banish them immediately to the archives - to make sure that no one's mind gets polluted by finding them on one of the more recent pages.

[WilliamPitt]

81. Good thing we have Journals.

:)

[kath]

83. Thanks for reminding me of the Journal feature - it's not something I'd

used before.
Thanks for fighting the good fight, Will.

[Elidor]

84. This was incremental progress

It's not the touchdown we wanted, but the ball has been moved down the field. (Yes, I hate football analogies, too, but this one works.) In the process the Democrats in congress have built up a consensus among themselves, enabling them to do more later, and they have shown that they do hear us out here, screaming in the wilderness, however faintly. This was a necessary first step for an institution which has forgotten how to be the majority party. With our encouragement/outrage/admonishment they can build on this.

I fully respect the principled stand that several of them took against it. In fact, if more of them had taken such a stance, we might have gone with a bill that had real teeth. But I'll take this largely symbolic victory and be damned thankful to get it. It's a start. This is just the first course; the feast is yet to come.