house dems vote overwhelmingly to support the war against Iraq....

[mike_c]

WTF is wrong with this country? People are calling this a political victory? A victory for whom? Shame on Nancy Pelosi.

Don't ever try to convince me that the majority of democrats in congess oppose Bush's war. They had their chance to prove that by STOPPING the funds to support it. They were complicit in the war crimes against Iraq yet again. There was no victory today. Only more shame and disappointment.

[fooj]

1. Read this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3178368&mesg_id=3178368

Things aren't always as they seem.

[mike_c]

3. good god-- do you think there is something to be PROUD of in that tale...?

Could this get any more bizarre? Three of the strongest anti-war dems being applauded because they helped pave the way to giving $100 billion to SUPPORT THE WAR against Iraq? Cue Rod Serling....

[fooj]

7. Where the fuck did I say this was a good or a bad thing?

YOU CUE ROD SERLING...

I just supplied the info. Get a grip.

[merh]

29. The only thing I can say about Rod Serling

is there are far too many folks that post here living in the f*cking Twilight Zone - reality is, we can't just pull out tomorrow, reality is, those troops there and in Afganistan deserve equipment and the vets deserve medical care and the military families deserve care.

We do not control by that much, we need to take baby steps building up to the big steps.

I'm tired of the nastiness, the ones that jump our case for trying to inject some reason into their hyperventilating tantrums remind me of righties, angry and lacking the ability to see all sides. With us or against us. :banghead:

You definitely didn't deserve that snark :hug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. Why can't we just pull out tomorrow?

You know I respect you merh, but I disagree. My friend leaves tomorrow for his third tour of duty in Iraq. Why should he have to go back?

I am tired of this argument being about the Democratic party instead of peace. That's not a with me or against me statement and I am not being snarky. The Democrats need to grow a spine and bring our troops home. Instead they are applauding themselves for voting to fund the war. It's nuts.

[merh]

91. It isn't about the democratic party, it is about peace.

And it is about not pulling out until something else is in place, a diplomatic solution and the UN and NATO forces to replace us. It's about human lifes, not just your friends or those I know over there, but innocent Iraqis that we fucked by invading their nation. Yes, we have an ethical obligation. Our pulling out tomorrow is not the answer.

[mike_c]

45. whoa, chill....

I'm upset by the circumstance, not by you, fooj. Sorry if I came off a bit rough.

[fooj]

74. No worries. Thanks for clarifying...

[TahitiNut]

19. The question now is whether the 'moderate' Dems will capitulate or reciprocate.

As we see that "the only position that can succeed" doesn't succeed, will they reciprocate and support the more liberal Dems' "out of Iraq now" position? Or will they capitulate and join their corporatist brethren on the right and perpetuate the massive shedding of blood for profit?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

2. You know what gets me sick?

It's how they talk about ending the war by September '08.

I'd like to tell them all that we would remember if they ended the war NOW. They don't have to wait until right before the election.

Shame on them for not stopping the war now. Think of all the lives they could save.

[ShortnFiery]

6. Yes!

This needs to be repeated OFTEN: "Shame on them for not stopping the war now." :grr: :thumbsdown:

[karlrschneider]

11. No fucking way in the known universe could they get 218 votes for that.

I don't like it, you don't like it, but facts often get in the way of our fondest dreams.

[ShortnFiery]

24. But that doesn't mean we don't stop the "full court press" for Peace.

Many, especially the Blue Dogs and the DLC could have come aboard much sooner. And yes, we will keep "all over" our representatives to BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! :thumbsup:

[karlrschneider]

42. No doubt...hold their feet to the fire, but realize it ain't gonna happen until

a LOT more families are personally affected. I know it sucks, but it is what it is.

[mike_c]

48. the "fact" is that the congressional democrats are supporting the war....

They are STILL supporting it, just like they supported it in 2002 and in March 2003.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Well if they knew that Bushboy was going to veto it, why not go for the

full court press?

Make a fucking statement, for crying outloud!

Instead the strongest statement they could come up with was, "Carry on as usual until you're almost out of office anyway, and if you want to invade Iran, hey, no problem."

[merh]

108. Trying to interject reality into these discussions

doesn't seem to help much. :(

[cali]

12. They can't end the war now. And anyone who thinks

they have that power is, well, not too swift.

[karlrschneider]

20. And, unfairly as it is, we all get painted by the same broad brush the RWers love to wield.

Sometimes I wonder which side we're on. :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

27. They can paint me purple with green polka dots if it helps to grease the wheels of

justice and humanity. Sorry, but those of us who wish to stop all the senseless killing and dying do not equate to Right Wingers EXCEPT for our passion for goal achievement. :hi:

[karlrschneider]

30. I meant no offense, I think you know that, but at some point we have to accept reality.

And I wouldn't be all that comfortable with YOUR ability to rule by fiat any more than I am with the degree to which Dubya is trying to. Hell, I wouldn't trust ME with that power.

[ShortnFiery]

32. Thank you. If I learned anything about the 70s, it was getting in Authority's face

and making the most noise that serves to goose our legislators into action. I'm sorry to come across as brusque, but IMO, you have to be "loud and proud" to shake those far too comfortable with the status quo (both Dems and Reps) to wake the hell up and serve the people.

If we remain silent, they will tacitly assume that we approve of them dragging this illegal and immoral war out for years. NO! If you want change, we have to beat feet door to door and on the streets. :hi:

Best wishes to you ... I'm often too blunt. :blush:

[karlrschneider]

40. No worries, I'm probably far more blunt than you are...I just think it's smart to pick

battles with a chance of winning instead of going against big odds. ;-)

[mike_c]

54. they'll never end it by continuing to pay whatever Bush asks, will they...?

:shrug:

[Just-plain-Kathy]

76. You're kidding, right? If they could end the war two months before

the '08 election...why can't they end it now?

[Monkeyman]

4. The Victory will be Bush's Veto

[MadHound]

10. And how is that a victory?

Bush vetoes, and since the Dems have already stated that they won't defund the war, all that will happen is that a war funding bill, minus the part about getting out, will be duly introduced, and duly passed, and the war will simply grind on. Bush still gets his war, the Dems get to look weak, and the folks over in Iraq will still get to die.

That's not a victory. That's continuing the madness.

[Monkeyman]

22. He Vetoes it people will know he does not support the troops or veterans.

Then the Democrats can cut funding. Didn't you think Murtha knew what he is doing. Bush does not get his war the veto cuts off funds. Gates need those funds by the 15th

[MadHound]

28. The American people already know where Bushboy stands, that he wants to continue to get his war on

If that's all this is about, it's pointless. We all already know that the man will veto it, and why he will do so. And since the Dem leadership has already stated, before they were seated, that they weren't going to do anything to defund the war, all that is going to happen is that in a week or two, another war funding bill, minus the withdrawl provisions, possibly with the other riders, will be introduced, passed and sign. And away we go around and around.

[Monkeyman]

37. You seem to think you know better then Murtha HMMM

One last time he Vetoes no funds. No Funds no war. Murtha can out think Bush any day.

[MadHound]

78. I do know that if you're going to defund the war, this isn't the way to do so

Better to bury it in committee, where it doesn't appear on Bush's desk. Otherwise it is open to loopholes, waivers, and as we all know, the ever present threat of a signing statement.

A much surer way of defunding that trying to play chicken with a mad man.

[stirlingsliver]

39. Do You Think The Democrats Will Cut Funding AFTER the Veto?

I don't think that will happen.

[Monkeyman]

44. They will keep adding to the bill Bush will keep vetoing it

[Just-plain-Kathy]

82. I wish dems would say,...We'll support the safe return of our troops and nothing else!

Welcome stirlingsilver :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. That will be a victory for the Democrats,

while the troops get fucked.

I am tired of this debate being about the Democratic party and the votes. You're a vet, aren't you? We need to be supporting the troops instead of the Democrats.

[tblue]

5. It's a step in the right direction.

"These Members of Congress played hardball from the beginning," David Sirota wrote, referring to the liberal House Dems. "And because of their efforts, progressive Democrats have not only brought the war closer to an end, but they have become one of the most powerful blocs in the U.S. Congress."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[karlrschneider]

8. Do you want SOMETHING as opposed to NOTHING?

There's no pie in the real world's sky. Insisting on instant gratification is a big part of what got us into this fucking mess in the first place. Smart politics is the art of achieving the possible.

[mike_c]

55. this IS nothing-- how is voting to give 100 billion to SUPPORT THE WAR...

..."something rather than nothing?" I suppose it's better than giving $200 billion....

[karlrschneider]

98. It puts a timetable in force. How can you say that is nothing?

Look, what you and most of us would like to have, an immediate withdrawal, ain't gonna happen. The general public won't even support it. Don't overlook my use of "immediate" if you care to respond.
edit: when I wrote "most of us", I meant most DUers. I think I'm right on that.

[Robbien]

9. Yeah there is a small group of us who know this bill is just so very wrong

But we are a small minority here at DU. Most are for the prowar bill.

[fooj]

13. I'm sure DUers appreciate the insult.

Are we at the FR or DU? I thought we were in this together. Nevermind...

[karlrschneider]

16. Some DUers won't ever be satisfied with anything less than their own personal agenda

being adopted RIGHT FUCKING NOW.
:eyes:

[Robbien]

17. How did I insult?

The bill is for funding the continuation of Iraq and Afghanistan military expenses with about $25B of additional pork.

It is a war bill.

[fooj]

23. It is NOT a PROWAR bill.

The 25B in additional pork was held over from the 109th Congress. We took care of business that the Repubs didn't give a shit about. Personally, I don't see funding Katrina (FINALLY) as "pork"...just my 2 cents...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=487015&mesg_id=487015

Do you TRUST Jack Murtha? I certainly do. Check out the video...it's powerful.

It's not always ALL or NOTHING.

[karlrschneider]

43. Sadly, to many people, even some DUers, anything less than all IS nothing.

:eyes:

[mike_c]

49. NOT at pro-war bill? 100 billion to support a war isn't pro-war...?

How much do they have to give before it's pro-war?

[fooj]

73. Did you see this?

from Murtha:

"The emergency supplemental appropriations bill provides more than was requested by the President for our troops and veterans. Significant increases are added to address military readiness and force protection equipment shortfalls, and service members’ health and housing needs. The bill provides an additional $1.2 billion to re-focus our efforts in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda and the Taliban are regrouping.

The bill also includes money that the President did not request for the health and well-being of our war fighter. This includes: $450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Counseling; $450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research; $730 million to offset the Administration’s insurance premium increase to our troops and their families; $62 million for amputee care for our returning war fighters; $14.8 million for burn care; and provides funding for the creation of a new program that will provide support for those who are taking care of our severely wounded in military hospitals around the world."

[mike_c]

75. yes-- AND it contains more than 100 billion for murdering Iraqis...

...and stealing their oil. I'm perfectly happy with the funding for veteran's care, brain injury research, and so on. I fully support those things. What I don't support is illegal wars of aggression and war crimes. No amount of veteran's care makes up for continuing crimes against humanity.

[Jcrowley]

87. What does

"refocus our efforts in Afghanistan" mean?

Is the US "Defense" Department on the defense against some folks in the mountains of Afghanistan?

Can you clarify? That seems preposterous on the face of it.

Is Murtha believing that that is okay?


BTW all of the monies for what you just laid out are already in Pentagon budgets as is the money for withdrawal. Look it up.

Trillion bucks a year. That's right. Wrap your head around that. That's what the US politicans rubber stamp for US Department of War.

[fooj]

95. I can't wrap my head around that.

That's insane. I'm not here as an advocate of war. I'm here to become as informed as I can be. I WILL look at the Pentagon budget...

Thank You.

[Jcrowley]

99. Some references

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1941

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm

http://www.alternet.org/story/47998

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5876.htm



The figures at pie chart above and link below don't reflect the actual expenditures but can give one an idea as to the stated figures.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

Ultimately there really is no way of knowing the precise figure nor is it really important to pin that down. An example of how impossible it is to track that down would be to examine University R&D that goes towards military applications. That figure is unknowable but very real. There are other examples.

[karlrschneider]

14. Have you already forgotten the Senate vote last week when we couldn't even get

a simple goddamn MAJORITY, let alone the 60 needed? The real world isn't in concert with our fondest dreams.

[Robbien]

21. So you pass a bill to continue funding military expenses of Iraq

And get huffy with me when I don't agree with it.

[karlrschneider]

25. I'm not in congress, so I didn't pass it.

I would much rather have a bill de-funding the war immediately, I surmise you would too but the political reality is that such a measure wouldn't get more than a few dozen votes. The real world is what it is and denying facts isn't really very productive.

[Robbien]

36. You don't need a bill to defund the war

If a bill for funding Iraq/Afghanistan military actions doesn't pass, then there is no funding for Iraq/Afghanistan military actions.

That is the real world.

[karlrschneider]

41. Oh, you are absolutely right! How many congresscritters do you suppose would

actually refuse to "support the troops" which would obviously be the RW spin on a refusal to fund the "war."?

I wish it were not so, but your real world isn't.

[Robbien]

46. Excuse me but the entire Republican side of the house did just that.

They voted no on this support the troops supplemental emergency funding of military actions bill.

And a dozen anti-war Democratic representatives also voted against it.

[karlrschneider]

57. The Repubs voted against a "time certain." The money was of no concern to them.

The Democrats (most of them, as I see it) who voted against it did so as a matter of conscience precisely because they oppose allowing it to continue for another year and a half. I absolutely do not fault them because I agree in ideal principle but I also understand how the real world of politics works and one unfortunate fact of life is that nobody gets everything they want instantaneously. If you think the world is fucked up now, imagine how it would be if -that- scenario were allowed to prevail.

[Robbien]

65. GOPers voted against the bill which gives the funding for military actions

Sure, GOPers didn't like the date included, but by voting against that they voted against funding.

If the bill doesn't pass, there is no funding.
If the bill passes, GWB will just grab the cash and "signing statement" away anything he doesn't like in the bill.

So it is a military funding bill. A military funding bill for which GOPers voted against and most Dems voted in favor.

[karlrschneider]

77. There has never been a bill that's all things to all people.

The GOPers voted no ONLY because of the withdrawal date. If you think they had any other reason, you really need to reconsider your point. They want the phony "war" to go on forever, basically. As usual, follow the money! So 13 (ISTR) Democrats voted 'no' for diametrically opposed reasons...they want to end the "war" ASAP if not immediately. I absolutely applaud their motives but recognize (as I'm sure they did) that it isn't going to happen. And, there is this:
Had this bill failed, you can take it to the bank that the RW noise machine would make hay over the "fact" that
the Democratic controlled congress failed to provide money to 'support the troops'. You and I know that's bullshit but the M$M would milk it for all it's worth and the claim would resonate with not only the 29% of braindeads who back Dubya, it would weigh on the minds of a lot of middle-of-roaders too.

Smart politics is recognizing an achievable goal and going for it...not tilting at windmills.

[Robbien]

92. Someone sure is tilting at windmills

So GOPers voted against funding for the troops, but you ignore that and beat people like me up for supporting Dems who voted against the funding.

You believe the Dems who pushed to pass the military funding bill are so skilled at playing games that they are going to get Bush to either Veto or support an end date. However these exact same Dems cannot get the word out that GOPers voted against funding for the troops. And Bush is great with that signing statement game of his own.

You believe this is some big crazy skilled game being played to step by step stop the bombs, but the Dems playing can't get even the simple truth out of who voted for what.

[karlrschneider]

94. I'm not beating you up, I j;ust think you aren't being realistic.

But it really IS a game (in a sick sort of way)...a chess game, if you will, where you have to anticipate your opponent's moves well in advance. We Dems failed to do that in 2000 and in 04 as well and we let the bastards steal the elections. Strategy is more than reactive defense, it also requires anticipatory moves. We didn't handle that very well since 2000.
But you don't rid your kitchen of ants with a shotgun, the problem needs finesse. We're JUST NOW learning how
to alter the big picture by gnawing at it bit by bit. Sometimes the whole is really more than the sum of its parts.

[Robbien]

97. You guys keep saying you are funding the war because it is just a

move in this pie-in-the-sky chess game.

But where is the next good move? I keep hearing about this veto and deployment business but what's the move. The Senate won't pass this bill. If they pass anything at all it won't be even close to this bill.

Say the Senate passes something, then the bills have to be reconciled and the outcome won't be anything like a get out of Iraq bill because that will never pass the Senate final vote.

But say it does, then the crazy bill has to go to GWB who will "signing statement" away everything but the money.

Where's the win?

You keep saying we anti-war funding people want it all or nothing. I keep saying you pro-war funding people are crazy for calling us nuts. There is no big ass chess game being played here.

[karlrschneider]

100. Well, I don't know what the hell to tell you. A big chunk of DUers called the "no" voters

traitors because they didn't support a firm withdrawal date. And a lot of DUers piled on the "yes" voters because they're funding the bullshit "war."

All of which is academic if Chimp attaches a 'signing statement' to a bill he's already promised to veto so where does that leave us? I mean, what exactly the fuck are we arguing about? Some of us want to stop the "war" instantaneously. Probably most of us DUers do. I agree with that position but it's not a realistic expectation.

Facts have a nasty way of getting in the way of our wants. Two weeks ago we couldn't even get a simple majority in the Senate, let alone the 60 votes needed.

And please don't refer to me as one of the "pro-war funding people"...I resent the hell of that baseless and inaccurate representation. Get off your butt, take a walk outside and have a look at the real world.

[Robbien]

101. We both have been doing it

You have been calling people like me simplistic, all or nothing.

You don't think we don't resent the hell out of that baseless and inaccurate representation?

I know you are not pro war, or at least you haven't been. But all of a sudden the whole group of you guys have decided to attack those of us who didn't see that this chess game of yours is worth giving up our anti war stance.

You believe in that chess game. Fine, go with it. We don't see the gain. But you guys wouldn't let us be, we had to join with you and you started calling us "simplistic, all or nothing" when we didn't join with you.

And to tell you the truth, for four years I've hated each and every time a Democrat has voted in favor of that awful emergency funding bill. Now that the Democrats are in charge I really believed they would stop. This vote was a huge disappointment. So discouraging.

And DUers set up threads to urge people to call and shame Democrats who wouldn't vote to fund more war!!!! Talk about insult to injury!!!

[karlrschneider]

104. Sorry, I never meant to insult anyone but don't you see that insisting on

everything or nothing isn't going to produce any kind of positive result? When I was a kid, I wanted a pony for Christmas. I got a bike. I didn't throw it over a cliff because it wasn't the exact thing I wanted. I got the pony a few years later, though.

Pissing on anything less than your ideal doesn't get anything done, it just makes the next logical step more difficult.
I marched in protests of the VietNam war in 1968. I wrote letters and raised hell. I got fired from a job for supporting George McGovern in 1972. Fine, but I still think something is better than nothing. I guess in today's world of instant gratification that isn't good enough.

[Robbien]

111. But what you don't see it that

there is no win in this Iraq military funding bill when doing it your way.

You keep saying my side is asking for all or none. We keep saying your side is asking for worse than none or none. Your side is asking for the war funding bill to pass or the war funding bill to be vetoed. No win there.

We say this is the first time there was an opportunity to have no funding billing at all. A huge win.

Your way, no win or worse than a win, more war. Our way, a huge win.


edit: You believe a bill with a tentative date gets you somewhere.
Congress passed a bill that specifically said "NO MORE TORTURE". Bush signed that away in a signing statement.
If Bush can sign away torture what do you think he would do with a silly date if you could manage to get a bill with a date to his desk.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. What a defeatist attitude!

"We can't get the Republicanites to agree with us, so we'll just be timid."

I am beyond disgusted.

What part of "Our country is committing war crimes" don't you understand?

[proud2BlibKansan]

63. I am in your group

Not one more dollar. Not one more death.

It is disappointing that so few DUers are in our group.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. Most Of Us Just Aren't Braindead Enough To Think We Could Just *POOF* Defund The War.

I think the bill could've been better most definitely. But I still find your labeling of the rest of us as supporting the 'prowar' bill, as if the issue is so childishly simplistic, to be quite pathetic.

[alstephenson]

15. Prepare to get flamed, Mike.

This board is on fire today!

[Individualist]

18. You'll be accused of being a traitor and a purist.

I'm disgusted at some of the posts I've read today.

[fooj]

26. Things aren't always as they seem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3178368&mesg_id=3178368

[Individualist]

35. I see two replies to my post,

yours and "ignored".

[cali]

31. Me too.

I think it's digusting to characterize this legislation as pro-war- though I also think it's digusting for people to characterize those progressives who voted against it, as traitors.

[mike_c]

52. I am a PROUD liberal "purist" when it comes to opposing illegal and immoral...

...wars of aggression. Shame on the democratic house of representatives! Who were they representing today?

[karlrschneider]

60. purist? Idealist, perhaps. What did you really want them to do?

I'm not criticizing your wishes, I share them but we have the congress we have and there's nothing we can do about it until the next election. But it's all academic, there's no chance a similar bill will pass the Senate...hell, we couldn't even get a simple majority last week let alone the 60 votes needed. We have to use what we have...wishing only works in Disneyland.

[mike_c]

61. "what we have" is a house that is complicit in Bush's crimes once again...

...and this time none of them can hide behind not knowing precisely what they were voting to fund. They betrayed America today. Right now I don't give a rat's buttocks why they felt it necessary to do so, but every one of those yes votes was a betrayal of this country. Every one of them.

[karlrschneider]

67. This funding bill won't make it through the Senate. But if by some weird chance it DOES,

chimp will veto it, and the whole thing starts over. Either there are enough votes to override (there aren't) so the whole thing has to start from scratch, basically. I'm willing to believe the congressional Dems are smart enough to know how it works...even more than you or I do. Stop and think how much WORSE it would have been if we didn't have a thin majority...the spending bill would have passed with NO end-point included.

[mike_c]

70. so why play political games? why not simpy try to stop the war...

...by stopping the funding? Why not appropriate funds to LAVISHLY pay for withdrawal, but none for anything but withdrawal? I am so tired of my representatives being complicit in these crimes. Have they no shame at all? I am utterly mortified by what my country is doing in my name.

[karlrschneider]

86. I truly admire your passion. I really do. Maybe you could direct it to

the people who have the power to actually do something about it? I've worn out one printer writing letters to my representatives, working on the second one. You don't need to convince me, I'm just a pissed-off constituent.
;-)

[Individualist]

71. as am I

See my sig line.

[Jcrowley]

33. As I posted earlier

As relates to the US "involvement" in Iraq there is a serious error in the language being used in Congress and faithfully parroted in the US media and following from that a grave misunderstanding about what went down today, what exactly was voted on and more importantly what was entirely omitted.

As was first put forth by the Bush adminstration and drummed into Americans heads via the corporate media the term that folks came to use to describe the pending invasion into the energy rich region of the Middle East "War on Iraq" and it is the same term used erroneously as the occupation grinds on. There is little questioning of this framework within the accepted political dialogue in Congress or amongst the pundits.

There is a small problem with that term that leads to a great deal of confusion. It is quite simply a lie. There is no "War on Iraq" nor has there ever been one.

There was an illegal invasion.

There is an illegal occupation.

There is a concentrated mass slaughter the likes of which the planet has not seen in decades.

There are massive amounts of militaristic corporate embezzlement.

And, lastly, there is a long list of war crimes.

Now what was voted on today when presented in these terms, which more accurately reflects the recent history and the everyday reality of the Iraqi people and more accurately represents the way the rest of the world sees the US invasion and occupation, may bring us to a very different set of conclusions about the validity of Pelosi's Plan. It certainly begs the question, "Why is it that the true nature of the United States ongoing atrocities in Iraq is not given the open debate it deserves?"

In the numerous speeches and discussions regarding this bill where was/is the term "War Crime?"

So tell me again how is this $124 billion bill going to stop the violence being visited upon the Iraqi people?

This is a bill that merely gives Bush over $100 billion to continue "The War", with no real strings attached. It gives him a free hand to attack Iran. There are scores of loopholes in it which would allow troops to remain in Iraq past Sept 2008; all Bush needs to do is claim the troops are there not for "combat" but rather for other purposes (such as fighting Al Qaeda, or training Iraqi troops, or guarding US installations, & or other task descriptions which are just word games to avoid calling it "combat").

The only thing in it that is a "step" towards ending "The War" is vague toothless language aiming at a pullout of combat troops by Aug 31, 2008.

This bill is not a step towards ending "The War." It's just a way that allows for some posturing as critics of "The War" until the 2008 elections, even while their actual votes support & fund "The War." It imposes no real restrictions on Bush, and is in practice no different than what he himself would most like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x488778

[mike_c]

68. right on....

Exactly right!

[PassingFair]

84. Bravo, Jcrowley.

Well said.

[karlrschneider]

96. Well, if what you say is true (I think it is), how do you explain Chimp's outrage

at the bill? Threatening a veto, etc. What is the disconnect?

[Jcrowley]

103. No disconnect

Political theatre and more posturing.

Mark these words.

Bush will never veto a supplemental war bill that, well, sends more funds for the war (Halliburton et al).

The bill he will eventually sign, and you know he will, will not be precisely the Pelosi plan (a pretty disgusting piece of legislation in a sane world) but will be re-jigged with enough "concessions" that that Bush-Handlers will deem it "imperfect" but will "reluctantly compromise" for the sake of "our boys."

C'mon we can just about script this shit by now.

Bush will sign it.

[karlrschneider]

105. You may be right. I hope so. If he does sign it, he will once again be shown as a liar/flip-flop

And if he vetoes it, there'll be hell to pay with a fairly significant piece of what's left of his constituency.
It's gonna be interesting however it plays out. ;-)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Stopping the war by funding it is like killing for peace. K&R

Or, like starting a war in Iraq to prevent war.

[mike_c]

47. exactly spot on....

eom

[bigtree]

85. Barbara Lee wanted to 'fund' her own withdrawal. Kucinich supported that.

that's what this bill intends to do.

[scarletwoman]

110. Or fucking for virginity. (nt)

[stirlingsliver]

38. Amen!

Soldiers will die in Iraq tomorrow -- and on Sunday, and on Monday.

Innocent people will die in Iraq tomorrow -- and on Sunday, and on Monday.

We should vote to END THE WAR NOW -- not fund it!!

[karlrschneider]

50. Well, it would take several billion to repatriate all our troops.

Which would be fine by me...so get your congressman to initiate a bill saying any appropriation for the Iraq 'endeavor'
can only be used to bring them home. Just enough to provide transportation, meals, housing and medical care while that's being done? Treatment for them and those who came back previously as well (sadly overdue)? How about
compensation for personal and family intangible losses? And reparations to Iraqis? I can't even imagine how to craft reasonable legislation covering all these contingencies. How should it be done?

[mike_c]

56. it's not congress's responsibility to do that....

That's the military's responsibility-- and you KNOW they have the funds already to withdraw from Iraq if necessary. However, even if they don't, Congress can say "no more funds for the war against Iraq" and the executive/pentagon can request an appropriation for withdrawal.

[karlrschneider]

62. You're avoiding the problem. It's the responsibility of Congress to fund

every aspect of the federal government. (Or not to, obviously, as they choose), but I wonder if you really appreciate the blowback that would result from a refusal to "support the troops", as it would be framed by the Rightwing. Their message can be wrong as hell but it's loud and it's happily spread by the corporate media.

[mike_c]

66. there is no political outcome that justifies continuing to commit crimes...

...against humanity. You're arguing that the potential political consequences of trying to stop the war justify fully funding it-- the only kind of full support that really matters-- when the war against Iraq is the ultimate internatiional crime. This isn't some petty political squabble. This isn't Tom Delay or Duke Cunningham. This is an illegal occupation following an illegal invasion, theft of a nation's resourses, murder of nearly one million civilians-- and you're worried about "blowback?"

[karlrschneider]

69. I'm worried about the 08 elections, yes. You should be too.

I hear you doing a lot of bitching but so far you haven't proposed a FEASIBLE alternative. I'm more than willing to consider any you might have. Look, I'm on your side, I just force myself to admit to the political reality that exists.
Maybe we really do need a benevolent dictator...

[mike_c]

72. ending the war against Iraq is more important to me than the survival...

...of any political party. They voters will pick up the pieces somehow, but even if they don't, I'd rather see the democratic party self destruct doing the only right thing that can be done than see it continuing its shameless complicity in crimes against humanity. This party is betraying America just as surely as the republican are betraying us.

The truth is that I think the opposite would happen. Republicans gloated that voters would turn against the democrats in 2006 but the voters did the opposite, largely because AMERICANS WANT OUT OF IRAQ. The party that gets us out of Iraq the soonest will reap tremendous benefits. But none of that matters to me in the end. We must stop this madness, or at least stop supporting it.

[karlrschneider]

83. But you are approaching the problem from precisely the wrong direction!

There IS no "war against Iraq". There is an INVASION of Iraq. I know you know the difference but it's a distinction that really is important. And when you characterize it as a "war" you trivialize the situation. Or overstate it...whatever.
The point is that IMO, we can't really do what you (and I mostly) want until we get a lot more congresspeople on "our side". Until we accomplish that, don't you think it behooves us to accept what we can actually get instead of insisting on 100% instant support? I prefer something over nothing.

[mike_c]

88. "something" in this case is complicity in a terrible crime....

Why won't congressional dems (and many here) face that? We pull a few folks out of line on their way to the ovens while we deliver the gas and suddenly our conscience is clear? ANY vote in support of continuing the hostilities against Iraq is complicity in that crime.

[karlrschneider]

93. Well, what do you suggest? Impeachment is an option but with us having a 1 vote

majority in the Senate, you know any trial, even if the House would pass a bill of impeachment, wouldn't have a snowball in hell's chance. Let me turn your question back...why won't some here face the reality that we aren't going to get what we want al instanter. It just doesn't work that way. The fundies got where they are by taking 'baby steps'...yes, it took them a long time but the strategy works, just not immediately. Rome wasn't (forgive the allusion) built in a day.

It takes a freight train several miles to get up to speed, and a few more to stop it. How about we don't bitch about some progress just because it isn't total?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

102. "why won't some here face the reality that we aren't going to get what we want al instanter"

Because they are just quite simply stupid. They mean well and have honorable intentions, but when it comes to objective critical thought they're just quite simply stupid. I'm amazingly embarrassed by some of the comments and behaviors I've seen here today. Just embarrassed. The closed mindedness and ignorant thought processes are astounding.

[karlrschneider]

106. Same here. I love my DUers, they're mostly great folks. I also love my doggies,

they're great but not all that smart. But at least everyone here has a voice. I guess that's worth something.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. I thought that's the message we sent by electing Democrats

:shrug:

Read my sig line.

ON EDIT: It's turned off, but it refers to the U.S. committing war crimes according to the Nuremberg standards: waging aggressive war, crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity.

[KG]

51. personally, i blame code pink.

:eyes:

[mike_c]

bwahahahaha....

:rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

53. Amen mike!

This is NOT good news.

How many of our troops will die while we argue about the best way to bring them home?

[noamnety]

64. I am with you on that.

A win for whom? is a darn good question.

This IS a right wing talking point (eh, well, with my commentary tossed in - they don't phrase it this way), but it is a talking point I agree with: if the democrats believed in their hearts it was the moral thing to do, to continue to fund war crimes under the guise of "supporting the troops" - they wouldn't have needed to include the pork to bribe their own folks to vote for it.

They should have let it stand how it was. Any funding bill should be allowed to stand how it is, alone. If the funding bill isn't worthy of being approved, it shouldn't be approved. End of story.

Personally, hell, I hope Bush vetoes it.

And I hope they get to an impasse where they can't pass a bill to fund war crimes.

THAT would be a victory. Not a victory for Pelosi, not a victory for Bush, not a victory for republicans or democrats. It would be a victory for the people.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. Were You The One Who Said All Of Our Troops Were War Criminals?

Even outside of that disgusting rhetoric itself, I still disagree with your Dem bashing premise.

[mike_c]

112. disgusting rhetoric?

What do you call the people who commit war crimes? Just following orders? :rofl:

[EFerrari]

107. It was a political victory and it was a defeat for human rights. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. You did read the bill, didn't yuu

and by the way some of us do live in reality.

Play chess much?

Or for a fact, do you understand how a parlaimentary system works?

I fear not

[mike_c]

113. yes, I know what's in the bill....

No amount of good intentions can make up for continuing criminal conduct. Sorry. I would not care if the bill also contained sugar and spice and everything nice-- it is formal complicity in crimes against humanity. You know that as well as I do.