The 14 traitors

[peaches2003]

This may be answered and I have missed it. Heard on the radio that 14 Dems voted no. Who were they, does anyone know?

Any Repugs vote for it?

[bryant69]

1. Traitors is a loaded word

Some of those presumably included people who felt like the Pelosi Bill was a failure because it left the Bush administration off the hook. I don't agree with that assessment but I am uncomfortable calling someone who makes it a traitor.

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

[Beelzebud]

2. The 14 that voted against it are not traitors. They did so because they want out immediately.

Although I disagree with that stance. You have to deal with reality as it is, not as it should be.

The point of this was to let it pass so Bush could veto it.

[rasputin1952]

11. That's the whole point right there...bush's veto will bring it to a head...

and ensure that people have a chance to look into things. This was a typical political ploy, used quite often by the RW nad the D's over the years.

Makes bush look bad no matter what he does...:D

[Beelzebud]

13. Exactly. I wish some around here could understand this...

It's chess, not checkers.

[Monkeyman]

14. Yep

[Rageneau]

15. It's Bridge, not Slapjack.

[rasputin1952]

20. You know...we have many passionate and well intentioned members ...

here at DU. I love the passion and love the eloquence of so many posts.

But many of our members have little political experience in some of these matters. One way to get experience is to go to local gov't meetings, in towns and counties, and see how many of these things really work. Not all is on a national level, and the nuances are there for those who look closely.

Most politicians will cast doubt about their opponents positions in almost any way they can, one way to do this is to outmaneuver your opponent, make them "blink" and question their own "wisdom"; in this case, the House did precisely what was intended, they made it so bush had to take a tenuous position, but a tar-heeled one. he can't get out of the mess and look good, it is win-win for the House.

I've been around for a long time and am always at local political meetings...the whole thing truly is a game of chess, and if you think a few moves ahead, and leave options, you can do almost anything to combat your opponent. Once cornered, you can Checkmate them with ease.

[GeorgeGist]

27. Care to share your wisdom ...

beyond making Bush 'look' bad?

[MGKrebs]

31. Well what do you think would have been better?

Pelosi had enough trouble getting enough votes to pass this thing. I guess they could have tried to pass one that said 'drop everything, send in the helicopters and pull them out", but not only does that exceed Congress' authority, it clearly would not have passed. What would be the point of that? Then what do we do?

[ends_dont_justify]

36. Bingo! Nail on the head

Politics is simply a matter of IMAGE. Why aren't our dems out there pushing for some of the biggest changes, hitting them so hard that enough good gets through they can't stop it all? Lambast it into the media so heavily that the people know change is on the rise? Where's our amber clad heroes we voted in? We get tiny chess moves about making bush look bad? We want impeachment, we want an end to the war, we want investigations. We want them now. This just proves to me the dems are playing games while the republicans destroy the world.

The simple answer is they don't want to. So long as their opponent looks bad, the world be damned, people with a conscience will vote dem...

[Ioo]

3. Bush is a traitor for Outing CIA Agent, these guys are not...

Please rethink the words you use.

[Solly Mack]

piffle

[eyesroll]

5. It was mostly progressives (Kucinich, Lee, Lewis, for instance) who weren't going to give $ to the

war, period, even with the timetable.

They weren't voting against withdrawal (at least not most of them)but against providing any more money for the war at all. (As I understand it, some wanted out NOW vs. 2008, too.)

Not traitors -- not exactly pragmatic but not traitors.

A few R's voted for it.

[helderheid]

6. Before you call these patriots "traitors"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x484353

[SteppingRazor]

7. Hardly traitors ... there were progressives who didn't think the bill went far enough...

as for Republicans who voted for it — yes, two did. Gilchrist and one other (Jones, maybe?)

[youthere]

8. Bullshit..they are NOT traitors.

They voted NO because this bill did not go far enough. They want an immediate pull-out or defunding of war.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

10. And I thought "purists" was bad.

[helderheid]

12. I hear ya!

[mmonk]

:pals:

[WilliamPitt]

16. It's a good thing this is a message board instead of the real world.

If I ever heard anyone call Lynne Woolsey a traitor on the street, I'd direct a screaming torrent of rage at whomever was astonishingly stupid enough to blurt such unequivocal nonsense.

Disagree with how she and ther others voted, fine.

But calling her a traitor is so utterly beneath contempt, I can't adequately describe it.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[minkyboodle]

24. yep

thats the most disturbing part.

[rasputin1952]

32. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, many have knowledge of

just how nuances work, some don't.

We are closing ranks, but I sure don't want to see 'lock-step' voting; however, that is how the GOP stayed in power for so long, they generally voted as a block. In this instance, we needed a #, deals werter made to get that #, and some could claim they voted on principle, it worked out just fine.

Being a life-long D, I know we argue about the silliest of things, like what flavor bagels to bring to coffee; but at the same time, we can come together when necessary when things are spelled out, or are obvious. We wrestled the GOP out of power, we did it with both our power of diversity and our power of passion.

In any case, the passage put bush on the spot, and that is what we needed...:D

[libnnc]

35. Mods shouldn't endorse using language like that

in describing Dems who have spent countless hours trying to figure out how to get our troops OUT of harm's way as quickly as is humanly possible.

Endorsing language that equivocates advocating for peace with being a traitor...THAT is inexcusable, irresponsible and downright dirty.

[dkofos]

22. And the same goes for anyone calling Kucinich a traitor.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Color me traitor too.

I am proud of every Democratic NO vote to war.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[GoneOffShore]

30. Have to agree with you.

This should be locked and removed.

If enough of us hit alert, it will be.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[LSK]

21. its not so clearcut on this vote

[Breeze54]

23. These people are patriots to me!

Excerpted from Feingold's Bill:

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/01/20070131iraq.html

FACT SHEET: IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT ACT OF 2007

Legislation Would Use Congress’s Power of the Purse to Redeploy Most U.S. Troops Out of Iraq in Six Months

“…Congress can, and has, used the power of the purse to restrict presidential war power.
If members of Congress are worried about American troops fighting for their lives in a futile war,
those lives are not protected by voting for continued funding. The proper and responsible action
is to terminate appropriations and bring the troops home.”

- Louis Fisher, Specialist in Constitutional Law, Law Library of Congress,
in his book “Presidential War Power.”

On numerous occasions, Congress has exercised its constitutional authority to end military engagements.

Here are just a few examples:

Cambodia –
In late December 1970, Congress passes the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act
prohibiting the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops
into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.

Vietnam –
In late June 1973, Congress passes the second Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1973.
This legislation contains language cutting off funds for combat activities in Vietnam
after August 15, 1973.

Somalia –
In November 1993, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act includes a provision that prohibits
funding after March 31, 1994 for military operations in Somalia, except for a limited number of
military personnel to protect American diplomatic personnel and American citizens, unless further
authorized by Congress.

Bosnia –
In 1998, Congress passes the Defense Authorization Bill, with a provision that prohibits
funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President makes certain assurances.

---------------------------

You better hold onto your stupid little list because the names on it are going to get longer!

Because 60% of Americans want a timetable for withdrawal by the end of the year.

February 2006, a Zogby poll found that 72% of the troops themselves thought they should
be out of Iraq by the end of 2006.

As a group of military families and veterans wrote in an open letter to Congress,

"Voting more funds for this war would be abandoning our troops. It would leave them
with the possibility of joining the over 3,160 who have died, or the tens of thousands
who have been wounded, physically, psychologically, or both."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Traitors? They voted against funding Bush's war.

The rest played politics.

[mtnsnake]

26. Traitors because they want out immediately instead of more than a year from now??

Traitors because they don't want to fund the war any longer?

They're not traitors. They don't want to waste another human life, body part, or dollar on this idiotic war.

[Individualist]

28. Progressives are traitors?

That sounds like a cartload of DLC bullshit to me. :puke:

[Malikshah]

29. Curiouser and curiouser... "Stick and move" method in this thread

Let one rip and then keep moving while folks faint from the stench....

Funny when one looks through the responses...

Just sayin...

[Carni]

34. Just a ridiculous post to create controversy

*traitor* should be reserved for real traitors like bushit, cheaty and their ilk.

Why even post this bullshit?

[Old and In the Way]

37. Kinda stepped in it, I guess.

As many others have pointed out, a Democratic "no" vote isn't the same as a Republican "no" vote. That said, you can be sure that the Republican noise machine won't tell the uninformed public the difference. Their vote will be used to say, "See? The Democrats are in disarray...even 14 of their own agree's with the Republican position." That will be absolutely wrong, but many, like you, won't be able to tell the difference.

[Ediacara]

39. Locking

This has devolved into a flamewar.