Kucinich Blasts Democrats

[no_to_war_economy]

It’s a disaster for the American people. The Democrats should have been voting—or come up with a plan to get out of Iraq. Not one that’s going to keep us there a year or two. It’s the same kind of thinking that led us into Iraq—that we didn’t have any alternatives. It’s the same thing that caused the Democrats to construct a plan that will keep us there at least for a year, and saying, well, we don’t have any other alternatives. I can tell you something, we could have come up with a plan that would have called for the troops to come home in the next few months. But we didn’t do that, so I, no one can tell me it’s a time for celebration. It’s a disaster.

Why couldn’t she (Pelosi) have said: “This war must end”? Congress has the power to cut off funds. Congress has the power to limit the funds. Congress could have taken a new direction. Let’s face it, Democrats are expected to do that. ... We need to go in a new direction. And that direction is out. And the fact that we gave the president money today to keep the war going through the end of his term constitutes a sellout of the interests of the American people. And a continuation of the war for another year at least, possibly two, and this is just wrong. Just totally wrong.


http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070324_kucinich_blasts_democrats/

[malaise]

1. He is correct n/t

[sasha031]

3. I contributed to his campaign yesterday

The MSM is keeping him off the radar, but he's making good use of the internet to get his message across.

Dennis is right about everything, did you watch the debates about health care yesterday? He is the only candidate with Real solutions, the rest want to subsidize the insurance companies, Dennis wants to break the back of health insures,

Health care should not be a commodity

[springhill]

118. OH Boy...............

I have a feeling he is about to be Sheehaned!

[Zhade]

136. Indeed.

NT!

[papau]

2. Can DK count the votes? Cudo's to Nancy for passing the best "out of Iraq" bill possible n/t

n/t

[iamjoy]

7. Idealism Vs. Pragmaticism

Those who agree with Kucinich are idealists. We have the power, let's use it to do the right thing. The Iraq War is wrong. The people don't support it. Get us out of there NOW. Take a stand - not a half measure. The one who appears weak usually loses.

Those who support Pelosi, etc. are pragmatic. Not all Americans oppose the war. Can we work together with those who disagree to a better arrangement, rather than spending time fighting over separation of powers issues and sending political ultimatums? The one who appears more extreme ususually loses.

[dkofos]

11. Cudo's hell.

If the bill even gets to the pResident it would be vetoed.

And if he does sign it, the war is fully funded until * is out of office. (which is all he really wants)

More dead soldiers for the next 2 years. $125 billion to his cronies.

Out of Iraq my ass!!

[bigtree]

17. If it fails to reach his desk, there won't be any chance for a stricter one passing

if it does reach his desk, and he vetoes it as promised, it will force him to find other ways to continue his occupation.

There are folks dying right now, but not because of anything Democrats have done. The ridiculous plan to just vote against a supplemental spending bill and force Bush to move as our forces were depleted of resources is DOA, as it should be. It would direct Bush to do nothing. I haven't heard anything from those opposed to this legislation which comes close to having any chance to be enacted into action. So, it's dishonest to keep presenting these strident plans as proposals which would successfully have our troops coming home this year. The balance of power in the Senate and in the WH won't allow those strident proposals or actions to have any effect on Bush's actions which would move our troops safely out of Iraq this year.

The proposals are no damn good if they don't do anything.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[cali]

42. Say what,

little cindylouwho?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[cali]

55. LOL!

More spurious garbage from newcindylowwho. I don't fully agree with that statement because many dems voted for the the IWR, but calling it a Pontius Pilate moment is nonsense of the first order.

[bigtree]

57. so conveinent to blame Democrats

That allows folks to, themselves, avoid having to effectively address the real obstructionists standing in the way of reform.

The whole bible thing is a confusion . . . But, this House didn't vote for Bush to unilaterally and preemptively invade and occupy Iraq, no matter what some claim they intended or effected with the original, false IWR, so, there is no need for any effort to wash 'blood' from their hands. Bush bears ultimate responsibility for keeping the troops hunkered down in Iraq as he has the ability to bring them home today without congressional action.

[papau]

26. True - but will he cut off funds for the troops thinking he can get away with starving them while

another bill is sent through the process?

[MadHound]

89. Defunding the war does not require starving the troops

Basic military funding, which is part of the overall budget passed each and every year, takes care of the basics such as payroll, food, healthcare, etc. etc. What Kucinich is talking about, as should the rest of us, is cutting off the supplemental war funding bill, which is the funding that keeps this war going. If you bury these supplementals in committee, you won't be starving the troops or withholding pay or healthcare, etc. All you be doing is starving the beast of war, and forcing Bush to bring the troops home.

Please stop confusing the two.

[bigtree]

102. who is guaranteeing that troops wouldn't/ won't be affected by a funding cut?

What will be your response when the effects of Bush's obstinacy now on the safety, security, and well-being of the troops on the battlefield and those in supporting roles in the region? He still hasn't gotten funds to continue his escalation; Congress has already expressed their objection, twice, to his occupation.

So, in effect, the troops are at the beginning of the process NOW of Congress refusing to provide a way forward for Bush which comports with his intention for an endless occupation. It won't be long before he's asked why he insists on continuing his occupation without funds or congressional support, whether he gets this legislation on his desk or not.

[MadHound]

108. Umm that would be the general military budget, which is voted in annually as part of overall budget

This military budget supplies the troops with food, their pay, healthcare, all of the basics and then some. However it is the supplemental budget which keeps this war going. Stop the supplemental budgets and you stop the war.

If Bush tries to pull money from elsewhere, from budgets that have been allocated for other matters, he will face a Constitutional crisis that will kick him out on his ass in a NY second.

Thus, by defunding the war, Bush is caught, he will either be forced to bring the troops home, or forced out of office.

[bigtree]

112. The occupation is 'defunded' RIGHT NOW, with this legislation

Bush doesn't accept it as funding and has promised to veto it, so it's ridiculous to assert that his occupation has been funded. The House took his funding request and corrupted it into a withdrawal plan which bears absolutely no resemblance to his blank-check request to continue his open-ended occupation. Bush will not accept the withdrawal legislation as funding. He's cut off from any support to continue his occupation unabated and with impunity.

He will not accept this legislation because it is completely in opposition to his intentions for an endless occupation, and he will not get funds from this Congress to continue. He's cut-off RIGHT NOW, and will continue to be until he agrees to leave Iraq.

[MadHound]

152. Gee, that 100 billion looks like funding to me

Sure, the bill has guidelines and timetables in it. It also has loopholes in it large enough for Bush to drive his war through it. And right now, with this loopholed legislation in his back pocket, he can afford to sit and wait and negotiate for a better deal.

That's why this bill is a funding bill. It continues to fund the war, and allows Bush to continue it indefinitely.

I'm not one to gloat, especially when peoples' lives are involved. But I might just have to bookmark this thread for next November, just so you can come back to it and see how utterly wrong you are.

[bigtree]

172. even the other proposals would require Congress to be vigilant in enforcing the provisions

Bush has nothing in his back pocket. He'd have nothing in his back pocket if he accepted this legislation requiring him to withdrawal.

I think it's significant that we're arguing over legislation which actually overcame the hurdles and passed out of the house. The other proposals are still just talk with no vehicle to propel them into action. That's the point. It make no sense at all to just talk about what we want until 2009 comes. I want legislation which will advance to his desk and confront him. Outside of DU folks recognize that this legislation did just that.

I want to know why there is no complaint from all of the virulent anti-Bush crowd here about the way he railed against Congress' right to bind his actions in Iraq with this legislation. He's already defying the legislative will of Congress. Soon he'll be directly defying it when legislation reaches his desk. If we stay focused on Bush we may have a chance to move him. If we keep distracting ourselves with attacking Democrats, we will never get anywhere near to holding him accountable. I can see republicans liking this. The internal debate among Democrats has taken all the energy away from the effort to confront and restrain Bush. Not one post in these Dem attack threads bothers to hold Bush accountable for his defiance in the face of the legislation. Folks in opposition here are satisfied instead with parsing the requirement that he withdrawal to fit their opposition to Democrats. There was never that fine a line when we attacked republicans. Any and every action by this administration needs confronting. It's just self-defeating to spend all of this energy belittling the first rebuke of Bush's Iraq occupation to pass out of a house of Congress since the initial invasion. Bush deserves all of this scorn, not a bunch of sour-grapes Democrats telling the world that our rebuke doesn't mean shit. It looks ridiculous in the face of the WH's abusive rhetoric against the measure.

And, you are now left arguing that Bush will ultimately accept it, despite the outrageous words of defiance that came from Bush and Cheney after passage. When do you plan to begin to hold Bush accountable for his defiance, MadHound?

[roody]

62. Democrats voted to give Bush war powers. They did

do something to kill our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. I don't need to name names.

[bigtree]

83. They didn't authorize anything he ultimately did in his false resolution

He ignored the provisions in the IWR which mandated the "exhausting of all peaceful means" and a return to the Security Council which would have restrained his unilateral, preemptive rush to invade and occupy.

Bush had all of the 'power' he needed to deploy troops without the IWR by exploiting loopholes in the War Powers Act which allowed him to send soldiers to the war zone without congressional approval for a short period of time before notifying Congress. At that point Congress would be charged to come up with a resolution either approving or rejecting the deployment. At that point Congress was going to be loath to remove the troops from the battlefield anyway.

At any rate, Bush doesn't openly or directly refer to the IWR as justification because he disregarded its provisions mandating restraint, and because it was based on established lies. The resolution which he's now relying on to continue is indicated in his rhetoric about 'terrorists' and al-Qaeda in Iraq. He's using the authorization to use military force passed in the wake of 9-11 as justification for all of his extra-constitutional posturing and actions in Iraq, Gitmo, and everywhere else he's using our military.

[SoFlaJet]

19. There's Papau again

hey we agree on this one-you know what it sort of reminds me of? I'm a musician and there are some people who think they can go from their room right to the stage at Madison Square Garden withOUT having to pay those dues in bars and clubs and CYO dances-he's like one of those people that I meet from time to time-no retreat,no surrender is nice and all-ya know for people like Tom DeLay

[papau]

25. Glad we agree - and for the record, as a failed (or "quit") musician I really do understand

the post (The highlight of my career was getting photo and a photo of the band into the local paper (Waukegan NewsSun) for a high school dance - a nephew tried to emulate my "career" with his Chicago area band "Booze Brothers" and actually lasted a few years - but my blood line does not have the DNA for the stage at Madison Square Garden :-) at least not so far! )

[Toots]

43. "Out of Iraq bill"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: although it isn't funny that hundreds and thousands will die and become maimed for life, it is very funny that you think this is the very best possible and that it in any way will get us out of Iraq. What it does is keep us there for at least another decade for the purpose of "catching A; Qaeda or teaching Iraqis" If our troops aren't doing those two things some can start coming home in two years.. :rofl: the very best possible. And even this will get a veto from bush* and the Democrats will cave once more as they always do.. Bush* will have his war as he has showed complete domination over the timid Democrats...

[papau]

93. What was the whip count on the DK alternative? And if a legislative solution is not possible, why

dump on those that put together a bill that could be passed and may be a solution, even if you think they are wrong?

If what we can do legislatively isn't enough, what do you suggest we do that will be effective in getting the troops, or at least the vast majority of the troops, home before the next presidential term?

[MadHound]

87. And defunding the war requires absolutely zero votes

Simply hold up those supplemental war funding bills in committee, indefinetely, and starve the beast. In addition, it will end the war a hell of a lot quicker than these sort of funding bills which while they have a timeline, leave Bush loopholes big enough that Bush can continue to drive his war through them.

[bigtree]

4. Kucinich is still pushing a plan which is DOA among his party and pretending it has a chance in hell

of moving Bush out of Iraq just by his posturing against Democrats.

Then, after basically calling them warmongers for their Iraq withdrawal bill, he claims to hope they'll adopt his plan in the future. What good is he in this effort in Congress? He'll get absolutely NOTHING done in this Congress to move a demand for withdrawal to Bush's desk with his strident rhetoric. All he seems to be geared toward is attacking his own party.

[no_to_war_economy]

6. he is pushing a plan that America wants .. fuck what his party wants

he is a man with convictions! imagine that from a politician!!

[bigtree]

10. He's selling a plan which has no realistic chance of being enacted

anyone can do that

[MadHound]

91. The only action required to bury those supplemental funding bill in committee

Is for the Dems to exhibit their resolve and a spine. No votes are required, no compromises to be hashed out, just simply resolve to hold the spending bills in committee.

[bigtree]

115. that effect is being played out right now, even with this withdrawal legislation.

Bush doesn't see it as license to continue. Look at his and Cheney's speeches. They are cut-off, for all practical purposes, from continuing their occupation.

I'm watching a report that Bush's escalation is hurting the force, without any mention of any denial of money for him to continue. Having offered more than enough money to effect a responsible and safe withdrawal, Bush is now challenged to explain how he intends to continue his occupation without money and support. I don't see the media blaming Democrats who are insisting he ends it. Bush will now bear all of the responsibility for continuing. Congress has cut him off. He agrees that he's being denied the money he needs to continue.

All of the shortfalls are going to be blamed on his ambition in Iraq which far outstretches that of the American people. Congress, however, has just passed a responsible withdrawal plan which he rejected.

[MadHound]

138. For all we know, Bush is simply considering this to be the first step in negotiations

After all, he's essentially gotten all he wants with this bill, funding and loopholes large enough to drive his war through. Why not show some bluster and bravado and see what shakes out, he might get more. Hell, it's worked before, and with the Dem leadership taking defunding off the table(before they were even seated) Bush is confident that he has the upper hand. So why not negotiate for more?

Remember, Bush might be dumb, but the people behind him aren't, and they've known how to play the Dems for the past six years. No reason why they shouldn't play them some more.

[bigtree]

146. It's convenient for you to ignore Bush's defiance of Congress' will

no protest of it because you insist Pelosi is actually helping him . . . even though he's railing against her bill even before it became public.

Bush is off the hook then - behind your logic - because Pelosi really didn't confront him with her withdrawal legislation and he's really not defying anything.

[MadHound]

165. Please, restate this, you're making absolutely zero sense here n/t

[bigtree]

174. There's Bush railing against the bill, defying the will of Congress

but you can't seem to get to the point where you will criticize him for that defiance because you want to sell your notion that the bill is something he wants.

When are you going to step up and hold Bush accountable for his defiance of the this legislation which requires him to withdrawal? Is it okay with you that he's defying the will of Congress? What's the sense in insisting the plan doesn't require him to withdrawal when he's busy railing against it? He certainly hasn't indicated at all that he's enabled by the legislation. He's busy trashing the provisions. He should be confronted on that. When will you begin that effort to confront Bush for his defiance of the provisions in the legislation which require he withdrawal? It seems more important to you to portray the bill as ineffective than to hold Bush to account for defying the intention of Congress in this legislation that he withdrawal.

[MadHound]

180. ???

How is Bush in "defiance of the this legislation?" It isn't law yet, it isn't even out of the Senate and on his desk yet. So what is there for him to defy?:shrug: If you are referring to his speaking out forcefully against it, well, as much as you are I might dislike it, he has that right.

And frankly, I find it quite possible that all of Bush's words are nothing more than an act. Why not, why not play the aggrieved President in order to what other legislation shakes out to his further benefit. After all, with this piece of legislation we're discussing, he has the funding for his war, and loopholes in the bill that are big enough that he can drive that war through it indefinitely. But hey, why not act all pissed, he probably figures he can shake even further concessions out of the Dems if he does so. After all, he already knows what our hole card is, since the Dem leadership vowed not to defund the war.

In regards to this bill, Bush is not in defiance of a damn thing. Like you, or I, or the person down the road, he's as free to criticize it as much as he wants. He's free to jump up and down and hold his breath until he turns blue. Now then, when and if the bill becomes law, we can indeed see how he defies it. But with the loopholes that are gaping, I doubt that he will have to.

[cali]

15. I just love it when someone claims to speak for all Americans,

whether it be bushco or you. What crap. He's a politician. He's playing to his tiny base. He's been ineffectual in Congress, compared to say, Bernie Sanders who managed to get more Amendments to legislation in his tenure in the House than anyone else during the same period. Kucinich trades hard work and real progress for futile gestures and the limelight of his pointless run for President. I used to think, well, at least he may move the candidates to the left. Now I don't see the possibility of his doing even that. Meet the new Harold Stassen.

BTW, Americans are against the war, but they're hugely divided about how to end it. something that's reflected in poll after poll.

[MadHound]

94. Let's see here

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_022607.htm>

Hmm, a majority want out of Iraq immediately, a very large minority are in favor of defunding the war. Gee, don't you think that this minority could be turned into a majority if the Dems would take to the bully pulpit and massage that message? Happens all the time, why not now?

And frankly, there are times when the moral imperative requires people to put aside politics, their political careers, the whims of the public, and simply do the right and moral thing. This is one of those times. Let's defund this war, bring it to an end, and worry about poltiical matters after it is over.

[merh]

51. the american people do want out of iraq, but not all see it as

get out and do nothing else. Many are going through the moral dilemma that congress is going through. How do you just walk away from the chaos you caused, how do you destroy a land and leave it's people to anarchy and civil war?

All or nothing is wrong in just about every situation we face in the real world. Ideally, it would be wonderful to have our troops home tomorrow, but what does that do for the nation we have destroyed. Without a plan to help bring peace to the region, without diplomatic measures and UN and NATO involvement, leaving Iraq would be wrong on so many levels.

Voting convictions is one thing, voting a solution or trying to find one that is realistic is another. I have lost respect for K on this, he is not only being impractical, he is not being helpful.

[cali]

151. Time for you and Dennis and Cindy and

bush and all others to stop purporting to speak for the American people, and pretending that you know what they want.

[PassingFair]

162. Time for YOU to enlist since you seem to want to fight it out.

Since YOU'RE speaking for the public now.

[cali]

170. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Did you ever consider using logic? I mean, ever? My disagreeing with you on a discussion board is reason for me to enlist? Pshaw. My stating that I don't like others to purport to speak for all Americans is mistranslated by you to "you're speaking for the public"? Meh.

[Tellurian]

23. What good does DK get out of doing this..

He is also screaming for Impeachment. He has to know it's impossible right know. Why does he continue to make a fool of himself? A hero in his own mind, scenario?

[Jonathan50]

85. Dennis is pushing the Overton Window to the left..

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

The Overton window is a concept in political theory, named after the former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Joe Overton, who developed the model. It describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on an issue. Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable. By moving the limited range . Delivering rhetoric to define the window provides a plan of action to make more acceptable to the public some ideas by priming them with other ideas allowed to remain unacceptable, but which make the real target ideas seem more acceptable by comparison.

The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as:

* Unthinkable
* Radical
* Acceptable
* Sensible
* Popular
* Policy

The Overton Window is a means of visualizing which ideas define that range of acceptance by where they fall in it, and adding new ideas that can push the old ideas towards acceptance merely by making the limits more extreme.

[cindylouwho]

92. Thank you.

I didn't know that. I just knew the repubs had put this country into a position that I would never have believed possible till they did it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Ah, yes. Legislative genius Dennis Kucinich.

Why couldn’t she (Pelosi) have said: “This war must end”?

Well let's see, since the compromise bill passed only by the narrowest of margins, anything stronger would have most certainly failed.

It's easy to rant at the leadership when you don't actually have any responsibilities yourself. Kucinich is a tool. And not a very good tool at that.

[Greyhound]

109. He's done far more than you have. n/t

[cali]

8. He's playing to his base and he's dishonest.

Portrait of courage, my ass. That crap about Congress having the power, is baloney. Technically, of course, it's accurate in that Congress does hold the purse strings, but Kucinich knows better than anyone here that the Dem Caucus is a diverse body and that NO WAY ON EARTH were there more than 80 votes for cutting off funding. Putting up such legislation would have HURT the efforts to end the war and exercise some control over bushco, not helped.

And I used to admire Kucinich.

[KharmaTrain]

13. What Else Does He Have???

In '04, DK was a fresh face to many and a real voice in the wilderness...it helped get him a lot of attention around here and gave his campaign a boost...but that was in a weaker field in an election many "experts" felt was booooshie's to lose (which he did). Remember, one of our choices in '04 was Liebermann. This year the game is far different.

First, the campaign started 6 months earlier than most candidates expected...this was the time DK used in '03 to start getting his word out...however this year he's one voice among many...and a "tired" one (in corporate media terms) at that. His polling and his fundraising are in the rear view of most the other candidates and he's finding it harder and harder to get heard/noticed. That's why he will play Don Quixote on Faux and be a bigger thorn in Pelosi's side than on the Repugnicans.

The "my way or the highway" crowd still don't get how far of a hole the Democrats have had to dig out of to get to this point. We still have to fight a very potent corporate media and repugnican spin machine that loves what DK is doing as he'll fill the "Democrats are undecisive" role they love to portray.

I have no question in Cong. Kucinich's sincerity about wanting to end this ugly invasion...and I share many of the same positions he does...however, politics is the "art of the possible" only when you can win votes and advance change. Neither our political system or the public in general is in favor of a swing from one political pole to the other. I'm just grateful we've started to swing the pendulum back to the middle from the far right. That's gonna require all of us to continue pushing...and pushing together as much as possible.

:hi:

[Dawgs]

18. Exactly KharmaTrain!!!

We need more DUers like you.

[merh]

73. If I could recommend on post, I would recommend your's Kharma Train

politics is the "art of the possible" only when you can win votes and advance change. Neither our political system or the public in general is in favor of a swing from one political pole to the other. I'm just grateful we've started to swing the pendulum back to the middle from the far right. That's gonna require all of us to continue pushing...and pushing together as much as possible. ~ Kharma Train

thank you

[MadHound]

97. Dennis has been right on this war from the beginning

Unlike many other Democrats, many of whom are currently running for the White House. He has also served as the conscience of the party, and has served in that role well. Don't you think that instead of playing politics, we should listen to our party's political conscience and do as he suggests. He has, after all, been right before on all of the war related issues. He's right on this one too.

[KharmaTrain]

122. Politicians Shouldn't Play Politics??

In all due respect, aren't that what these people are? Including Kucinich...which is the gist of this thread. He's making political statements and lacks the support from a sufficient number of his peers to do much more than play a "spoiler" or as you would define "conscience" and where I would put somewhere in the catagory of "lone wolf". Either way, while we here may agree with his views, that isn't where the body politic is. It's a lot closer to where he was on Iraq, but still there's a long way for "the mainstream" to come.

Sadly I've been right about this invasion since the outset, but in 2003, I was in the 10% who both destested this invasion and this regime...today I'm proud to see where things have come, but also have seen it happen at a toll that others are just starting to wake up to. Being a "conscience" is a good thing...and again, I admire the stances Cong. Kucinich has taken on this illegal invasion; however his voice serves better to prod the debate towards our viewpoint rather than taking a scorched earth policy.

Cheers...

[MadHound]

137. Yes, but unlike many of his peers, Kucinich isn't willing to put his political career

Above the morality of continuing to support and fund an illegal, immoral war.

And frankly you underestimate the will of the people<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_022607.htm> The majority of Americans want us out of Iraq NOW. A very large minority are willing to follow Dennis' plan to defund the war. Gee, if the Dems took to the bully pulpit, that minority could easily be turned into a majority.

There comes a certain point in time when a politician stops putting their career and themselves above the moral imperative of the moment. This is one of those times, and Kucinich sees this clearly. The easiest, more sure way of ending this war is to defund it and force the troops home. Any thing else is indeed playiing political games.

[KharmaTrain]

141. The Only Polls That Matter Are In Primaries & November

Please don't try to sell me...I've been following things extremely closely and am an extreme critic to this illegal invasion. I'm also a realist and political observer of more years than I care to say.

Kucinich speaks from a safe perch in a heavily Democratic district. He has the luxuary many newly elected "purple" or more moderate Democrats...who make the majority necessary to pass legislation...don't in voting conviction and not having to face a well financed opponent and right wing slime machine. He doesn't need to worry how a vote can be contorted or a statement twisted in campaign literature. When you have that kind of stability, you can afford to take a stand...and I'll state it again, I've been a long time supporter of his stand against this invasion and agree with a vast majority of what he stands for and says. However, when it comes to tactics and the methods to his means, I respect the right to disagree.

Now, a final thought...think of your own life/career. You have worked hard to get up the ladder in your chosen field and you find yourself at a crossroad...taking a stand that could cost you not only your career and livlihood, but other dreams and ambitions, or you take the best deals you can get to fight again another day...hopefully from a stronger position. This has to play in how many of these politicians operate and how the system works.

Many of us here were years ahead of the "mainstream" Democrats...folks like John Murtha...but saw how they have evolved...and evolving this situation is. While you can cite polls all day long, they're a snapshot of a moment and always has to be qualified (rarely is) by what questions are asked, the number sampled and their demographics. Also, while the anti-war position is popular, there are many shades of what that position is...just like the vote we saw the other day.

The game here is to move the ball forward...continue to bring up votes and attempt to put the entire expense of this invasion put back into the budget where it can be monitored and controlled easier. While I wish this invasion had never occured and our troops were home or on their way right now, the rest of the country still needs to move further in our direction.

Cheers...

[MadHound]

143. Shame on you, and shame on the Democrats who think as you do

Putting politics ahead of lives lost and destruction dealt. Geez, it's a good thing that you weren't making the calls on issues like slavery or civil rights, God knows we'd still be in the dark ages now.

There comes a time when one has to put considerations of one's political career aside, and do the right and moral thing. With tens of thousands of innocents dying in Iraq, that time has come, here and now. That you and these politicians even weigh their careers in the balance on such a matter simply goes to show how craven, cowardly and self centered they are, and how little they deserve the office that they currently have. They primary duty of these politicians is to do what is right for the people, not what is merely poltically expedient. And frankly, if this is the attitude of the majority of Democrats, then the goddamn party deserves to go onto the dustbin of history, for it has lost its moral compass. We were, at one time, the protector of the weak, downtrodden, the innocents. Now you state that we're only to do this when it politically expedient? How many people are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of politics? How much blood are you willing to spill? How many lives is a political career worth? For Shame!

And yes, for your information, I have sacrificed a career in order to do the moral thing. There are always other careers, other professional paths to take. But a life is a finite thing, once you lose it, it's gone. You lose a career, oh well, it bites, but you can find another one, and having done the moral and right thing, easier to rebuild than you think. Morality and integrity are still appreciated in many quarters in this country, one doesn't always have to be a self centered slime to get ahead.

[KharmaTrain]

158. You Took This To A Personal Level...Shame On You

Peace...

[PassingFair]

159. After YOUR post you accuse HIM of taking it to a personal level?

I feel like you sucked the air out of the room!

You have more gall than a republican!

[Kagemusha]

71. Zero divided by any number amounts to zero.

Hurting the efforts to end the war wouldn't have detracted much of anything because they're not going to end the war. They're not going to come close. Bet you the bill never gets to Bush's desk through the Senate.

If Congress is satisfied with only technically having the power of the purse, it can be satisfied with only technically being a co-equal branch of government. Frankly, that sounds about right to me. Congress seems quite satisfied with that on a broad bipartisan basis.

[MadHound]

96. He is speaking the truth

The Democratic party has the power to defund and end this war, simply by burying all of these supplemental war funding bills in committee. It won't take votes, all it takes is collective Democratic will. Now then, it is amazing how the 'Pugs can get their people into line, to form a collective block. Are you saying that the Dems can't do the same? Wow, then either that is a reflection of poor leadership, in which case Reid and Pelosi should step aside for somebody who can provide this leadership, or it is a reflection of much greater problems with the party, in which the party should simply disband, for these problems are terminal and cannot be fixed.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

127. I see no reason why Congress...

...should humor a Kucinich '08 campaign stunt at this point, given all of the nasty, nonsensical gibberish he's laid on the Party in the past three years.

[PassingFair]

160. Right....like voting against the IWR. Crazy KOOK!

:crazy:

[Tigress DEM]

166. Is he the one who recently claimed the "DIY Impeachment" as his soapbox?

Saw one of the "also runnings" and I'm pretty sure it was him, speaking up about the Progressive Plan to End the War in Iraq, which I don't have a basic objection to, but I feel it should be presented on its own merits not used to slam against the rest of the party.

... Then he starts spouting about how HE is leading the way on DIY Impeachment after how many people over how many years started the movement before him. Has the guy NEVER HEARD OF JOHN CONYERS who I am PRETTY SURE was the first on the Impeachment and DIY Impeachment bandwagons as far as Congress goes. DK posts one survey and all of the sudden he invented DIY Impeachment. What a yutz.

[HereSince1628]

9. I'm very disappointed in this bill and I'll buy no spinach until the troops

come home.

[bigtree]

12. that'll help the farmers who voluntarily destroyed their cash crops

when asked to by the government during the e-coli scare, even though they likely weren't tainted, and weren't compensated. It's just spinach to us, but it's a living to these farmers . . .

[HereSince1628]

121. Yes, but if they want relief via a troop funding bill they've linked themselves to the troops

and given me a handle, small as it may be.

And it's easy for me because I'm not too sympathetic with the fresh spinach industry. They are the ones who are cutting corners, enjoying lax inspection and using in-field-processing practices that have made them plenty at the cost of raising the risk to the population.

[bigtree]

126. I don't understand why you insist it's some obstruction in the bill

is it the amount of money? It doesn't obstruct the delivery of any of the benefits or other provisions in the legislation.

[HereSince1628]

153. It's this...some Reps held their votes until they got $omething to take home

those Reps held the passage hostage to get a piece of hog to deliver to their constituents.

I can't vote for a Rep from another state, but I can decide to not support the industry that was pumping those reps to a level where the Reps linked their vote to $$ for a special interest back home.

In my book the money game this congress is playing is just the same old shit and it stinks. Being mired in a hopeless occupation after an illegal war deserves something other than the same old shit.

All I've got left to make a difference with is my wallet. I can't aim my purchasing at a Rep who pulled this shit, but I can pass on buying fresh spinach every week.

[Tigress DEM]

168. It isn't exactly what we want or need, but I think the calculations are good.

Kind of like how you sacrifice a pawn or knight to get in position to check mate.

Spinach is a good payback for the rethugs kill bills that poisoned minimum wage with the Paris Hilton tax breaks.

It's the bill they want vetoed so they can justify playing hard ball and getting more progressive. After all, it's a compromise *ush should willingly take since it funds it through his admin and means he can dump the war on someone else.

But underneath investigations are going on to get the evidence to evict the bozos. Just cause Congress puts aside money for war doesn't mean they can't change things if we can convict these guys of war crimes.

[dkofos]

14. The people want out NOW. Not in 2 years

[cali]

16. No they don't. The people are DIVIDED.

Go to Polling Report and check it out.

[dkofos]

21. Is there a poll that asks

Do you want out of Iraq now or before the elections next year Yes or no??

I doubt it!!

[cali]

27. I'm sick of linking to polls for people who are too lazy ass

to google, and who make broad sweeping statements about what "the people" want- as if Americans are in lockstep about ANYTHING. But here you go. It's only about the tenth time I've done this in the past few days- including a thread I started on the topic.

As you can see, only 21% of those polled favor pulling out now:

Which of the following comes closest to your view? The U.S. should immediately begin to withdraw all its troops from Iraq. The U.S. should withdraw all its troops from Iraq within a year. The U.S. should keep its troops in Iraq as long as is needed to turn control over to the Iraqi government."

.

Withdraw
Now Withdraw
Within Year Stay as Long
As Needed Unsure
% % % %
3/9-11/07
21 37 39 4

It boils down to this: A strong majority of Americans is against the war, BUT they aren't sure what they want done regarding ending it. Oh, and it's not only polling report.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

[dkofos]

28. Why did you bother to reply?

Hope I didn't put you out.
But, that is not the question I was looking for.

[cali]

30. You made the fucking false claim that Americans want out NOW

I provided the evidence that that was a bullshit statement. You provide none, and then whine that I didn't answer the question you wanted asked.

Just damn.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[cali]

37. LOL!

That's the best you can do?

[dkofos]

39. No. But it is enough for you.

[lonestarnot]

69. Out NOW is right.

[MadHound]

98. Here's what you're looking for

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_022607.htm>

Note, the majority, 56% of Americans want out now. A large minority, 46% of Americans are in favor of defunding the war. With the Dems using the bully pulpit, this large minority could easily be switched to a majority. It happens all the time. Hope that helps.

[lonestarnot]

176. Thanks MadHound.

I really never looked though, my bad.

[Dawgs]

22. cali,

Unfortunately, some people just don't get it; and I'm agreeing with you.

Even if 70% of Americans decided they wanted to get out now, the Democrats would still have the same problems passing anything better than what they just passed. Kucinich should be embarrassed for attacking anyone on this spending bill. He, as much as anyone, should understand how Congress works. He's pandering to his base, and anyone with any common sense knows it. It's too bad.

[PassingFair]

161. You are making the case!

Why don't YOU enlist?

http://www.army.com/enlist/active-duty.html

[cali]

177. Because, duh, I'm opposed to this war

I'm just not simple minded like others who shall be nameless.

[Dawgs]

24. First of all it's 18 months, not two years.

Second, it doesn't matter what the American public thinks until the Democrats get a greater majority in Congress. Why is that so hard to understand?

Kucinich is right that we need to get out now, but blaming the Democrats for not doing it, while still knowing that they can't, helps no one.

[dkofos]

29. BFD 18 months 2 years 1000 dead 2000 dead who cares

[skipos]

31. Well, Kuc will be happy that this bill will be vetoed.

Just as anything stronger will be too.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. It will not be vetoed

The Senate will pass a version much more acceptable to the administration.

[bigtree]

60. If it is accepted, it has many points of accountability

and a mandate in the legislation for Congress to revisit the 'progress' repeatedly, even ending the occupation earlier than the end date if it appears the Iraqis have no intention of taking over responsibility for their own security, even with our help. And, there is the end date on the legislation which even Rep. Lee acknowledged as important enough to advance, even as she voted against the bill.

[MadHound]

100. And it has loophole big enough that Bush can drive his war through them indefinitely

Namely that he can keep troops in Iraq so long as they are "training Iraqi security forces" or "fighting Al-Qaeda". Gee, isn't that what we're nominally doing right now?

Sorry, but this bill is a worthless POS that allows Bush to keep his war on for as long as he wants, and allows the killing to continue indefinitely.

[bigtree]

117. there's nothing stopping Congress from confronting him on the validity of any stated need

The legislation is specific, but you choose to interpret it as if our majority wasn't in place and charged with holding the administration's feet to the fire (specifically in this legislation)

Bush and his enablers certainly don't see this bill as a license to continue their occupation.

here's the provision that some claim is a loophole allowing Bush to continue his occupation indefinitely:

(f) After the conclusion of the 180-day period for redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:

(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.
(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.
(4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Nothing in the provision gives Bush the sole power to determine any of these. Congress will still be in place to challenge any assertion that troops are needed to address these concerns. This provision spells that out for the skeptical:

It is the sense of Congress that, because the commanders of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq have the training, experience, and first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground--

(1) the commanders should be allowed to conduct the war and manage the movements of the troops; and
(2) Congress should remain focused on executing its oversight role.

[MadHound]

139. And who does the interpretation of those weasel words "limited in duration and scope"?

Let me tell you, Bush will get first crack at doing so, since he is the C in C. If the Congress objects, saying that this isn't what they meant, ie the want an interpretation of this law, which branch of government does that sort of interpretation? Yeah, that's right, the Judicial Branch, which Bush has packed with his hand picked sychophants, all the way up to and including the Supreme Court. Not only will this be interpreted in his favor, it will take many long months with which to run this up the judicial line, more months, more deaths, more destruction, more money wasted.

However all this mess can be bypassed by not giving Bush a bill to mangle at all, that's by defunding this war. Clear, simple, and Bush can't fuck with it.

[bigtree]

144. good luck with your parsing

This isn't the republican rubber-stamp party and you need to get used to that. Bush already has the ability to dance around laws, but he hasn't tried any of that yet. There's a reason. Our majority is already engaged in holding this administration and their republican enablers accountable for their actions with every lever available.

You want to despair about every lever Bush has? Feel free. But don't expect this Congress to stand still. This second effort to hold Bush accountable and reign him in shows that they can come together to accomplish their goals. In just 11 weeks they have defied critics and moved their agenda forward in the House. The Senate seems to be getting into gear as well with the Byrd bill coming up.

Bush wasn't given anything. All of the parsing of the provisions to negate Congress' potential ability to confront him ignores the fact that everyone else except the (Democratic?) critics on our party's left see this as a rebuke and repudiation of Bush's occupation.

[MadHound]

145. It isn't I who will need the luck when the parsing comes around

It will be the Dems who need the luck, and the people who are dying daily in Iraq who will need that luck. For the parsing will indeed be done by those whom Bush has appointed, who have a vested interest in pleasing Bush and keeping this war going.

Rather than even having to deal with the threat of parsing, why not simply defund the war, bring it to a halt, and bring the troops home. Easy, simple, with no parsing required:shrug:

Yeah, this bill is a defeat, a defeat for all of us. And frankly, unless the Dems defund the war, I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that we'll still be in Iraq, in force, by November of next year.

[bigtree]

173. I love the way you folks throw the deaths in Iraq in my face as if you were blameless

you have no plan which has any chance of reigning Bush in, as far as I'm concerned. At the least, you haven't yet figured a way to make you plan happen. All you seem to be able to do is bash Democrats. I'm sitting here on the outside waiting for something to advance to Bush's desk so that he will be the one left to explain why he's proceeding forward in the face of congressional opposition.

You have no plan which has ANY chance of getting through this Congress. You are just as responsible for those deaths because of that inability to effectively confront Bush, by YOUR logic.

[MadHound]

181. Gee, I've stated my plan, and DK's plan, many times on this thread and elsewhere

Defund the war. Bury each and every supplemental funding bill in committee, starve the beast and force Bushboy to bring the troops home. Easy, simply, and it won't be required to go through Congress, since setting the agenda and deciding which bills hit the floor is the perogative of the the party in power, which is currently the Dems. Got it? Can you understand it? I hope so, I've explained this many times before to you, on this thread and others. Yet you keep insisting that I don't have a plan:eyes:

Read for comprehension, not the snappy comeback.

[bigtree]

182. you don't have a plan which has gathered the necessary support to advance it legislatively

to Bush's desk

[MadHound]

183. Ummm, that's the whole point, you don't have to advance it through the legislature to Bush's desk

What part of "bury supplemental war funding bills in committee" do you not understand?

No need to go through the legislature, with all of the perils that presents. No need to face Bush's veto pen. You simply, neatly defund the war and bring the troops home.

[roody]

103. Just so the oil companies get their free oil!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Dennis is obviously "Too Liberal" for some. Better to play politics than end the war.

But, gosh, they "tried" but didn't have the votes. So, as a "compromise" they voted more funds for for Bush's war.

Oh, wait, it was a "symbolic" gesture because Bush is going to veto it and it will embarrass him.

The obvious question: If they wanted to pass a "symbolic" vote, why not one with some teeth like the one Maxine Waters, et al, wrote that actually challenges Bush to end the war and clearly states their opposition to it?

What a pathetic farce. Dennis is right.

[no_hypocrisy]

35. Qualification of your opinion: Dennis is too "independent" for some.

Dennis Kucinich does not seem to check with his political patrons before he makes a public statement. No lobbyists. No corporations. No AIPAC. No special interest groups. Just Dennis. He'll take the heat for his outspokenness. I think that what makes him compelling to many of us.

Yes, without money, his voice will not be heard by as great a number to be "viable". And who will give him money if he doesn't return something for the "support"? Here lies the problem of politics as they exist this day.

[cali]

36. Dennis is just playing politics

as I said above, he's playing to his base, and being dishonest about it, to boot. I have no respect for people who take the easy way out- and that's exactly what he's doing. Not to mention his ineffectual tenure in the House; give me bernie any old day.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. And, Nancy isn't?

She caved to the Blue Dogs in order to "get the votes" necessary to pass this meaningless bill. Will she now abandon them and try a tougher bill once Shrub vetoes this one? Or, will she play politics and attempt another "compromise" in order to ensure that the Democrats aren't seen as not "supporting the troops" by funding them?

[bettyellen]

82. oh please, pelosi is taking the "easy " way to get her toothless bill vetoed.

it's embarrassing people think there's anything admirable in that.
It's sad to admire such castrated and toothless legislation. i can't make excuses for it like you can.

[bigtree]

86. that's an amazing statement since a 'strong' bill would face the same veto

but would have absolutely no chance of getting out of either house of Congress and anywhere near Bush's desk.

[MadHound]

101. Defunding the war, the strongest statement going, guaranteed to end the war, won't face a veto

All it takes to do this is for the Democrats to hold up each and every supplemental funding bill in committee forever. Starve the beast, force Bush to bring the troops home.

[bigtree]

107. That action, which would affect the troops first, directs Bush to do nothing

He's without the funds he needs now, and he refuses to pull back from his escalation. He's promised to veto the funding efforts to restrain him, so, he'll be without the funds he says he needs (and the ones you think will 'starve' him), and he's without them right NOW. All of the talk of this legislation enabling Bush is nonsense in the face of his promise to reject the efforts. Crafters of this legislation knew his intention going in.

If he accepts, he's not only repudiating all of the nonsense about victory and retreat that he's been spouting and his entire house of cards collapses, he's bound to a plan to withdrawal by a date certain with many points of accountability and opportunities for further congressional action.

If he rejects the legislation, as expected, he'll be without the money he says he needs to continue. He and Cheney can rail against Democrats as traitors and terrorist enablers all they want but the rejected legislation establishes that the Democrats are not only firmly behind fully supporting the troops in their withdrawal, they don't intend to abandon any credible defense against any terrorist threat. Bush will then be challenged to explain (in the face of our firm opposition, backed by the withdrawal bill) why and how he expects to continue his occupation without money or support.

All of that doesn't happen by refusing to vote for a supplemental funding bill. That budget request is moot now. Bush will not get his request; he won't accept the withdrawal money just approved by the House, so, he's "starving" NOW, and will continue to be starved.

[MadHound]

111. No, actually he has enough funds from the last supplemental war funding bill

That the Dems helped pass to keep this war going until April 15th, according to NPR. After that, the war, not the military, runs out of money. The troops basic needs are still taken care of with the military budget, the one that is passed with the overall budget on an annual basis. This takes care of basics such as food, pay, healthcare, etc. However the war itself takes special funding, hence these ongoing supplemental funding bills. Stop these bills and you stop the war, and no, you won't hurt the troops.

Meanwhile, there is really nothing preventing Bush from accepting this funding bill that was just passed. After all, it has loopholes big enough to allow Bush to drive his war through, specifically those words allowing Bush to keep troops in Iraq as long as they're either "training Iraqi security forces" or "fighting Al-Qaeda". This is what Bush states we're doing right now, so what's the difference:shrug:

[bigtree]

119. so, the occupation is defunded now.

he won't accept the Democrats' withdrawal legislation, so, he's 'defunded' and will be until he agrees to exit.

Have you been listening to Bush and Cheney since it passed? They are not going to accept this bill. Will you keep arguing that Bush has money to continue his occupation the entire time he's rejecting the Democrat's withdrawl bill? You can't have the argument every which way you want. Either he has money or he doesn't. He doesn't. He won't accept the Democratic withdrawal legislation, so he won't have even that money to fiddle with, although that money comes with a congressional leash which promises continuing congressional action to keep him focused on leaving Iraq. That's Congress' intention, no matter what detractors want to project on their effort. They intend to end the occupation by a date certain. Bush understands that. That's why he's come out so strong against the House action, even before the bill was presented.

[MadHound]

140. See my post 138 up above

Bush has money up through April 15, plenty of time for these negotiations to be worked out. And frankly, Bush already thinks he knows our hole card, since Pelosi and the Dem leadership already stated that they wouldn't defund the war, before they were even seated. Therefore this gives Bush a position of strenth from which to deal from. Therefore why shouldn't he and Cheney pitch a fit, huff and puff, and sees what more he can shake out of the Dems. KInd of like Br'er Rabbit and the Briar Patch. Put on a good show and you could very well get your fondest wish.

[bigtree]

142. That's some projecting

They didn't 'defund' the troops. That's what they promised, not anything about refusing to defund a war. She said they wouldn't take needed funds away from the troops in their legislation. They didn't.

We are a long way from Bush capitulating to any negotiation. If we do get there, any move toward ending the occupation will unravel his entire argument. He hasn't left any room at all for a capitulation which wouldn't be a repudiation of all the posturing he's done for a year against Democrats as traitors and terrorist enablers. I don't see his act as some kind of cover for a future reach back for the Pelosi bill. That's just not credible on its face. He's boxed in by the House action and becoming more and more isolated in his insistence on keeping our troops bogged down in Iraq. Bush will come back our way, but folks are dead wrong if they think Pelosi and the other leaders in our party haven't anticipated this and aren't prepared to make him pay. We've only just begun to pressure his republican enablers. Pick them off and you get the capitulation from Bush you need.

[MadHound]

147. We'll see, Bush will probably defund this bill, and then what

Congress will send up another supplemental. Keep an eye on what that one contains, that will tell the tale.

But gee, rather than fucking around with bills at all, why not just bury all supplementals in committee and thus defund the war and bring the troops home:shrug:

[bigtree]

149. Because it doesn't take any responsibility for anything

Has our party become so irrelevant that they shouldn't direct action through legislation? I don't see the responsibility, even the value in sitting on our hands.

[MadHound]

164. Wow, that's a stunner, what, you think politics should be played by Marquis of Queensbury rules?

Burying bills is a time honored political tactic, one that does take reponsibility for effectively killing that particular piece of legislation. Yet here you are, saying that we should do everything out on the open floor, an up or down vote on each piece of legislation? Geez, are you naive.

By that logic we should also allow every RW nutjob piece of legislation out onto the floor too, all that pork, all those bills that restrict women's rights, human rights, flag burning amendments(yeah Hillary would love that one:eyes:), all that garbage onto the floor. What fucking planet are you from? Do you honestly think that any Congress, Dem or 'Pug has ever done that before?

Burying legislation is one of the weapons of the party in power. We are the party in power, put in that position by the people of this country for one particular purpose, to stop this war ASAP, and by any means necessary. That means that we shouldn't dick around with namby pamby non binding resolutions. That means that we shouldn't put legislation out there that the 'Pugs, or worse yet, Bush with his signing statements, can render ineffective. That means that we shouldn't engage in meaningless gestures. Defunding the war by burying the supplementals is the surest, quickest way of ending this war. Is that not your goal? So let's stop dicking around with this weak assed shit, bury the bills and end the war.

Anything else will simply leave the blood of innocents on a lot of hands.

[bigtree]

175. Bullshit. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing

that's what those opposed to this legislation have managed to advance. I'm not in Congress. I'm waiting for someone to advance some legislation to his desk demanding a withdrawal.

I don't know how you can look at the inability of folks who share your view about this legislation, and have their own proposals, to get the support in Congress to even get their proposals out of committee. What good are all of their proposals ifg they don't have a vehicle to advance through Congress? What good are they to me, here on the outside, with no power to effect any of that? I need someone who has the ability to move legislation, not just talk endlessly about how good their proposal and how bad the one that actually advanced is.

I don't know how folks can stand beside the failed proposals and insist they are saving any lives, much less accuse those who are actually advancing withdrawal legislation of causing deaths, as you have here.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. No

my complaint is not that he's too liberal. It's that he prefers rhetoric over results, style over substance.

He's like a kid who demands a pony. Mom says "No, you can't have a pony - don't be silly. But we'll get you a dog."

Dennis is the kid who refuses the dog, holding on to his demand for a pony. Even a slow child would recognize how this business works and take the dog. But not Dennis! He'll keep crying for that pony until he's one day sent off to the group home.

At the end of a long life, filled with macrame potholders, on his deathbed, he'll still be demanding that goddamned pony.

[bigtree]

40. our political institutions are designed for debate or compromise

'politics' is their business. They don't seem to me to be 'playing' anything. They are seriously engaged in trying to move a rebuke of Bush's occupation through their houses with the intention of dropping them on Bush's desk. He will then be challenged to either accept the funds provided for a withdrawal, or reject them and try to continue without money or support.

Dennis may be right, but he's dishonest about the chance for anything he's proposed moving out of the body he votes in. Everything he's doing is 'symbolic' without an effective vehicle to enact his proposals.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. The "political institutions" are the problem not the answer.

What do you think the Democrats will do after Bush vetoes the bill. Will they defy him? Or, will they craft another "compromise" more to his liking in order to "support the troops" while sending an even milder message?

Given the "compromises" to the right already made in this bill which rendered it toothless and the fact that those "compromises" weren't enough to garner a veto proof majority, what now? According to you, Nancy was forced to pander to the Blue Dogs just to get the votes necessary to get to the magic 218. Is she now going to abandon the Blue Dogs and attempt a tougher bill?

I think not.

[bigtree]

64. Our government is a political institution. There is no shame in that.

Our political institutions are the place where we are to reconcile the myriad of proposals and initiatives from the many diverse points around the nation, furthered by representatives from those quarters.

I think Bush will be the one left to act after he finds himself without funds or congressional support. You tell me if there will be any value in troops beginning to return home as part of a compromise before the next election? How can anyone say there would be no value in a compromise which begins to bring our troops home and marks an end to the occupation?

We'll cross that bridge when and if we get there.

[mondo joe]

44. Politics is the only way to end the war. This is a political matter.

You may have missed that whole government thing, but that's how decisions are made.

[Greyhound]

33. Another victory for the Republiks, courtesy of the Democrats.

Until this bill was passed, the crime in Iraq was wholly a product of the Republican Party_®. Now, thanks to this POS that has no effect other than to ensure funding for whatever arbusto_® decides to do with his last two years, it is our war too.

Do you think that support for the war has really grown?...

If the Democrats had told the American people in October 2006, “Vote Democrat, we’ll keep the war going till the end of Bush’s term; vote Democrat, we’ll privatize Iraq’s oil; vote Democrat, we’ll give the president enough money to attack Iran if he so chooses,” the American people would have never voted Democrat.

Just why do you think that so many Americans voted Democratic they were able to overcome the still rigged voting?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[cali]

47. It takes amazing ignorance or willull

um you know, to compare Nancy Pelosi and the majority of the Progressive Caucus who voted for the Supplemental, to Lieberman.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[cali]

65. It would have read better if you'd used the word

"disabuse" instead of "free yoursel", and oh yeah, I'll respond to you as I want to, not as you want me to.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[cali]

75. What? I love and admire Elizabeth Edwards, and I've

never said anything remotely to the contrary. Do you always just make shit up? Yes, I can be caustic and snarky, but you might try checking out a mirror to see how "nice" you are. As for Kucinich, where once I had some respect for him, now I don't. It's that simple. Give me Bernie Sanders over Kucinich anyday. Luckily, being from Vermont, I've got him.

[Greyhound]

61. Apparently they still don't get what Harry said...

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time"

Inevitably there are only two courses for our party to take, make a stand or be replaced. Running as "not a Republik" will win an election from time to time, but not enough make any difference. Howard Dean and a few other politicians get it, the Republiks gets, and the American People certainly get it, when will our "leaders" get it?

[cali]

45. Man, what crap.

Americans, including those who voted for dems in November are divided on HOW to get out of Iraq, and in fact, only 21% want to get out now. The dem caucus is as diverse as the districts it represents. But hey, never let reality get in the way of bullshit.

[Greyhound]

56. The voters sent one, firm, crystal clear message last November.

They came out in such overwhelming numbers that all of the manipulation, dirty tricks, and outright fraud, couldn't overcome their majority. There was only one issue...



Out Of Iraq.

Your defense of double dealing, capitulation, and defiance of the will of the people, is just another example of why we've been losing consistently for 12 years in a row, and the majority of the 12 years preceding them. Apparently a quarter century isn't enough for you and the apologists.

Well, just keep on letting them slide with no accountability and see what is left of our nation after 30 or 40 years of Republik rule.

[cali]

63. No they didn't. It wasn't even the number one issue for voters.

That was corruption, and no dem candidate ran on defunding the war. The majority of Americans don't like the war, but are divided on how it should be ended. Only 21% want out now, as evidenced by the poll I posted above. Saying that they sent this crystal clear message, is no truer than bushco saying he had a mandate, and just repeating it doesn't make it truer.

[lonestarnot]

72. That poll is bullshit.

[cali]

79. LOL! You are funny.

Do you offer a poll that contradicts the one I presented? Gee, no. Wonder why that is? And btw, there are many other polls that indicate precisely the same. You know what's bullshit? Saying something is so without any evidence whatsofuckingever. That seems to be a practice you support.

[lonestarnot]

84. You are apparently not happy with any opinion that is unlike yours.

[cali]

99. I presented evidence in the form of a poll. I stated facts

such as corruption being the number one issue for voters last November, and that no dem ran on a platform to defund the war. Those are facts. You seem to be confusing what is fact and what is opinion. Your statement that I'm responding to, is an excellent example of an opinion.

Does that clear up your confusion for you?

[Jax]

124. Word!

This one won't see that I posted this because I'm on their ignore....and this one told me they are 'more liberal than Skinner'.

[Greyhound]

95. As I said, just keep on playing that losing strategy.

So you have a poll that says what you want us to believe, it doesn't make one whit of difference.

[MadHound]

106. Please, you're using Polling Report, notoriously right leaning.

Take a look at the people that they have working and contributing for them<http://www.pollingreport.com/nletter.htm#Contributors> Kohut, of the rightist Pew Institute, Zogby, Harris, and a bunch of other folks who lean right. Don't you think that doesn't effect their polling?

Let's try something that isn't so skewed<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_022607.htm> Gee, it shows that a majority of Americans, 56%, want out of Iraq NOW. More interesting still, it shows that a large minority, 46%, want the war defunded. Gee, don't you think that will a little massaging, a little bit of using the bully pulpit by the Dems we could turn that minority into a majority?

Defund the war, bring the troops home, NOW. America wants it, it is the right thing to do.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[bigtree]

66. *I'm just one poster expressing an opinion on a message board

do you really believe I have the power to make our party less diverse by expressing that opinion here?

Besides, I happen to believe that it was an excellent demonstration of that diversity as unity in action which compelled supporters of other stricter proposals to join with the majority to give the bill the votes it needed to pass.

Here's to diversity.

[bigtree]

46. It's still Bush's invasion until he signs something

He's refused already, so he's assuming control; he's the decider.

There were plenty of staggered, incremental withdrawal plans presented during the campaign which covered many of the points in this bill.

[WilliamPitt]

52. Traitor.

:sarcasm:

[cindylouwho]

58. Hi.

I'm probably going to get into trouble, but what are some more progressive websites?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[cali]

81. Yes, of course, it's a conspiracy between me and the mods

to get comments deleted. Tinfoil much?

[lonestarnot]

70. Thought you weren't going to be here this weekend! Ha. Busted!

:rofl:

[still_one]

76. So would it have been better to vote on a bill to get out in six months, and NOT pass

or vote on a bill that passes the house, sends a message, and may have a chance in the Senate?

It is a start

If you drafted a bill that wouldn't pass in the house, then it would be covered. This will get coverage and attention, and focus the issue of getting out of Iraq

[stirlingsliver]

77. Keep Saying The Truth, Dennis

Keep speaking the Truth to Power -- no matter WHO the POWER is!

[BeFree]

78. Is he all we have?

Is Dennis the only one who wants Peace?

[Greyhound]

113. Yep, so far. They all say they want peace, but there's always strings

attached to it, which proves the lie. Face it, war is very good for politics and very good for (some) business (and the accompanying campaign contributions) and that's the bottom line for most of these people.

[Zorra]

80. DK is correct. This conflict has been a disaster for everyone except

war profiteers. It will continue in this vein until the conflict ends.

Democrats should have had the spine to do the right thing and pull the plug. Now the senseless spilling of blood and the drain on our treasury will continue.

And for what purpose?

[bigtree]

90. I still don't know how anyone can counsel 'pulling the plug' and still vouch for the soldiers'

safety, security, and well-being since they would be the first to be affected by any money shortfall, whether manufactured by Bush or by Congress. I'd rather be in the position to ask Bush how he expects to continue his occupation in the face of his promised rejection of the funds for withdrawal the House legislation provides.

Also, the killing continues under the "plug pulling" scenario, only that action would direct Bush to do nothing and offer nothing to support the troops Bush has already put in harm's way, and to assist veterans and those in supporting roles here at home and in the region.

[BeFree]

116. That is BS, and you know it.

Given a fair and honest hearing of the matter, the troops are now being screwed and no Dem favors that. What you just wrote was a republicon talking point against the 4 year history that we want to see brought to a close.

Frankly, the killing continues whether our troops are there or not, but Giving Peace a Chance is our best course upon which we should set upon.

GPC is: Out Now. End the military occupation. Now.

[bigtree]

123. That's just bullshit that concern for the troops in a defunding effort is republican

I'm tired of being accused of using republican talking points for my SINCERE concern that the troops are the ones who will feel the effects of a reduction in funds. I'm watching a report NOW which is outlining the effects of the escalation. The notion of just refusing to pass a funding bill as a way to restrain Bush is a dubious one which relies on Bush first noticing the effect on the troops, then acting on it. If you accept that they are already hurting then why wouldn't you want our party to step up and provide the funds they need as they are ALREADY in harm's way? I'm not expecting Bush to allow the funds we provided to go through, but at least we stepped up and offered them in out withdrawal legislation. That's been attacked as money to continue the occupation. That's bullshit. It's money our troops need to support them while they are in harm's way. Just voting no on supplementals doesn't do ANYTHING to get the money to the troops who need it now. WEe stepped up and provided the money in our withdrawal plan, and now Bush is clearly the one who is keeping our troops from the funding they need to keep them safe and secure.

I don't know how anyone can take what I've said and twist it into some "talking point". I've been advocating on behalf of our soldiers for four years out of my own meager funds. I have a right to question actions which I think threaten them. Bush is the one who is denying funds to our troops, not Democrats. In passing this legislation which funds our troops in our withdrawal (like the plan Kucinich supported did), Democrats have demonstrated their intention to get our troops the money they need, which Bush is blocking in his zeal to continue without rebuke or restraint.

[BeFree]

128. In harm's way

You see, that is what we are talking about: the troops are in harm's way. And what all us peaceniks are talking about is ending that 4 years of troops being in harm's way. Now.

Of course, the votes to do the right thing are not there, but that doesn't mean that I have to stop asking for the right thing.

And yes, what you wrote is a republicon talking point. The first time I read such a quote was when it came right out of the mouth of a con. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, eh?

Now, bigtree, I know you are no con, and believe you ultimately want to end war. And if you are correct the path has finally been set, but I am not so sure about that.

Peace

[bigtree]

131. it is a dishonest republican party who has distorted our language

and adopted whatever position supports their short-term political goal. That's all they had to do for the entire Bush term, and they did it with impunity. I come at this from simple logic. The are no guarantees, or even any accountability, in just refusing to vote for funding bills. I want to know who is vouching for the safety and security of our troops in that action. I want to know, because I NOW hold Bush responsible for the denial of funds. With the passage of the withdrawal act, Bush is now completely responsible for holding up the money our troops need.

I just don't see how anyone can vouch for the effects of deliberately rejecting money which is intended for the troops. I've seen no line item applications for the money and I wonder how folks who advocate a funding cut-off with such vigor can be so certain that troops won't be affected when they're hurting now.

That will be the crux of the debate from now on. Democrats stepped up and put forward a requirement that Bush use the money provided in the bill to effect a responsible withdrawal. He's rejected it and left our troops at risk of further deterioration of their positions just to cling to his occupation in defiance of the American people.

[Zorra]

155. Sorry. By "pulling the plug", I meant not funding the conflict as well

as immediate withdrawal of our troops.

It is, IMO, very possible that Bu*h would find a way to make it personally politically expedient for our troops to just sit there and get slaughtered if the funding was cut off and there was no plan for immediate troop withdrawal.

[NoPasaran]

88. DK blasts Dems? Sounds like the sort of behavior

DK blasts Dems? Sounds like the sort of behavior we've come to expect from Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller. I wonder if the Green Party can accommodate both his and Nader's gigantic egos.

[roody]

105. When Dennis lost the primary, he supported the nominee.

Does not sound like Lieberman.

[helderheid]

110. exactly.

[cali]

125. When Dennis lost in Iowa, he threw his delegate to

Edwards who was supporting the war, instead of Dean. Hmm. Wonder how that's consistent with his passionate stance against the war?

[mikelgb]

104. I saw Dennis In Orange, CA yesterday

he was great, and his wife Elizabeth is stunning...

they are Real People

[mike_c]

114. DK is right-- Pelosi's bill is shameful, pro-war, pro-death, and anti-America....

I sincerely hope the republicans succeed in defeating it, and the democrats find a spine.

[bigtree]

120. Pelosi's bill has been correctly recognized by the opposition as a withdrawal bill

All of the effort to heap dismissive or 'enabling' rhetoric on top of provisions which are clearly intended to be points of accountability for administration action gives the WH a free pass for their strident denouncement of what they view as a demand to end their occupation. You claim it allows them to continue, and your dismissal of the legislation completely ignores the Bush administration's posturing against the provisions demanding an exit by a date certain and direction on how the funds are expended in the withdrawal. They clearly don't see the bill as all of what you claim or they would embrace it.

[mike_c]

133. "a withdrawal bill"-- LOL-- the word from the planet Spin....

:rofl:

Tell me it's a "withdrawal bill" a year from now. Meanwhile, have you finished your Koolaid?

[bigtree]

135. but, of course, your language is morally (and otherwise) superior

because only the proposal you support is truly a withdrawal plan.

Your taunting reminds me of the banter in a junior high school cafeteria.

Tell me a year from now what the effect of the Kucinich proposal (and attacks on our party) has been.

[MzNov]

129. I'm starting to believe that pelosi thinks Bush will change, and come around

to see the light. She is delusional. And she prays that he'll do the right thing. RIIIIGHHHHTTT. Do only a few elected representatives actually GET Bush, like those of us outside the beltway, or do they all just think he's a nice guy, the President, who deserves the respect of the office, and don't realize what an evil monster he really is. ???

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

130. Dennis should consider the fact that we elected a person who voted for the war

to represent us in the Presidential election. Sucks but Americans are not self identified progressives, most are "moderates" and the new congress (like it or not) represents a cross section of America.

JMHO.

[mike_c]

134. americans are moderates with regard to crimes against humanity...?

Well, that certainly explains a lot!

[mzmolly]

148. Given the fact that torture was likened to "hazing terrorists" I'd say yeah, unfortunately.

However, this is good news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

[0rganism]

132. It's just a question of where the bill goes to die

Kucinich's idea would meet with a filibuster in the senate, if not outright defeat.

Pelosi's compromise goes to bush for a veto, without the necessary votes to override.

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, it'll be nice to make bush break out the veto pen, and pillory him endlessly for his lack of support for the troops. On the other, bush is not running for re-election, and strangely enough, one could make the case that putting immediate responsibility onto the 33 incumbent senators who face election battles in 2008 would have a greater electoral impact. The question is, will it be easier to hang the Iraq war albatross around the collective GOP neck by way of bush, or will we stand more to gain by attacking individual senators on the basis of their support for continuing Iraqupation?

Hmm, maybe time to post a poll with that question.

[Hamlette]

150. this is why I have more respect for Hagel (on this issue) than DK

Hagel isn't dissing other Republicans. He is making his case.

[Kelly Rupert]

154. Thanks Dennis. Now run along and play, while the grownups try to figure out

how to outmaneuver Bush and his veto pen, the Senate Republicans and their filibuster, an MSM eager to pounce on the new Democratic majority, and an American people that doesn't trust either party.

[GreenPartyVoter]

156. Not too rude, were you?

[LoZoccolo]

157. Ha ha!

:thumbsup:

[Clarkie1]

167. Spot on! nt

[AnOhioan]

171. "an American people that doesn't trust either party"

the "grownups" you cite, presumably Pelosi and company, just passed a bill which reinforces the distrust the public has for politicians, of either party. People who voted Dem in '06 on the premise that the Dems would actually take concrete steps to reign in the chimp are disappointed and distrustful right now, can't say I blame them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

178. "an American people that doesn't trust either party." After this, with good reason.

The Republicans want to fund the war.

The Democrats want to fund the war.

We, as citizens, aren't supposed to "trust" either party. It's our responsibility not to "trust" politicians.

[DemBones DemBones]

163. One thing I like about the vote is that 3 of the 14 members of Congress

who voted "No" on H.R. 1591 represent a district in Georgia.

Please remember that the next time you think about dissing Georgia. :hippie:

(Or the South in general, since 1 "No" vote came from Tennessee and 1 from Mississippi, in addition to the 3 from Georgia.)

[entanglement]

169. He's absolutely right. Principled opponents of the war seem to be few and far between.

n/t

[salib]

179. Mr. Kucinich presents the modt important point

A Congress like the one we have right now is still far too pathetic to stand up to even the tin-pot leader we have in the White House.

What if the question were Iran?

No, Pelosi showed NO leadership. Instead, she played the role of steward, at best, and got away with what seemed possible. That is not the sign of a leader.

So, as I hear on AAR every weekday: "Tag! You're it."

Maybe it is time we stopped all the hero worship once and for all. Look at the problems we had with Bill Clinton, and where that "dynasty" would take us.