That's fair. But to be honest the entire escapade was just stupid and a poster child for the Republican party. I wouldn't want to be a part of it myself.
But you're right he certainly doesn't have the cajunas that Russ Feingold has.
Democrats failing to pass anti-war bill
- Thread starter LadyT
- Start date
That's fair. But to be honest the entire escapade was just stupid and a poster child for the Republican party. I wouldn't want to be a part of it myself.
But you're right he certainly doesn't have the cajunas that Russ Feingold has.
I think its a pretty fast way to end it.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Think about it .. democrats almost elected Lieberman as the VP .. which would have put him one heartbeat or a Mossad bullet away from being the President.
Think about it .. democrats almost elected Lieberman as the VP .. which would have put him one heartbeat or a Mossad bullet away from being the President.
Ugh. I don't even want to think about that. Still, him in a VP spot would have been infinitely better than $hit for brains in the oval office.
You are reading that as 56 voted against it. But 56 voted for it.
They needed 60 to reach cloture.
The bill was fillibustered.
You didn't hear the bill was fillibustered, because the liberal media only reports when democrats fillibuster. Even on CE Be Sbullshit, right Damo? No fillibuster, thus confusing libertarians with the math.
Webb's bill failed because the cloture motion, which would have ended debate on the measure, failed to pass by a 3/5ths majority (60 votes). 49 Democrats, one independent and six Republicans voted in favor of cutting off debate but their failed to reach the 60 vote threshold to get the bill on the floor for an up-or-down vote.
49 plus 1 is 50 not 56....
And it is definitely a filibuster. However, the Webb Amendment had nothing to do with ending the war.
The one measure they voted on to actually defund and end the war was defeated 70 to 28. That is most definitely a veto proof majority and definitely Democrats voted against ending the war on that one.
Thanks, but I can count, it was your other friend who was confused.
I wouldn't say the Webb amendment had "nothing to do with ending the war". After all the republicans who were yelling about it are on record as claiming it was nothing but "a backdoor attempt to end the war".
There are certain facts on the ground I'm sure you're aware of Damo. Giving the troops the rest that they so desperately need could make the whole house of cards they are playing with there, fall down.
No, they were saying it was a backdoor attempt to end the surge.
It would not end the war.
The surge is a strategy, not the war.
Maybe you're right about that, I'm not sure.
Not right. It would have required an accelerated draw-down and would have been step one to ending the war.
By Damo's standards the Reid-Feingold Amendment wouldn't have ended the war either because some troops would remain in Iraq beyond June 30, 2008.
Semantic BS is all it is.
No, that one would have ended the war. Of course, the one that could do what they said they would do was voted against 70 to 28. No matter which way you try to spin it, the fact is the Webb Amendment would not have ended the war, it would have simply ended the surge and the one that would actually end the war in June 2008 was voted against by the same people you said were voting to end the war.
You twist and turn, but you will still vote for the people who refused to end the war.
No matter how you spin it the Webb Amendment would have done a whole hell of a lot more than ended the surge. Just deal with that fact hotshot and learn that in life and politics getting to step one towards your eventual goal is better than getting to step zero. Webb's Amendment was step one towards ending the war and it was the only step that was achievable at this stage.
Your naivety is cute but it's wearing thin.
This is spin again.
The Webb amendment would have forced a drawback to pre-surge levels sooner. It was why it was proposed. It would not have ended the war. No matter how much you keep saying it would have. Repeating things doesn't make them true.
The only sure way that they had to actually end the war, was to defund it. And no matter how many times you try to pretend that the previous measure would have ended the war you know it would not have.
The one measure they voted for that would actually end the war was voted against 70 to 28. They finally got their veto-proof vote, too bad it went against what they promised.
Whatever you have to do to convince yourself that voting for the people that voted to extend the war is the "right" thing to do is what you are going to keep repeating.
Close your eyes and wish, it doesn't change that those people voted to continue action in Iraq and to fully fund it.
You don't know if it wouldn't have done more than go back to pre-surge levels though Damo. They are having great difficulty keeping troop levels now. Four tours, little rest between tours...you don't know what the exact ramifications of the webb amendment would have been Damo.
SHow some actual evidence that the Webb Amendment would have merely brought the troop numbers to pre-surge levels. Until then, we can just agree to disagree and I'll know I'm right and you're wrong.
Additionally, your second and third paragraphs make no sense. First you say that the only way to end the war is not defund it, yet you then say that the Reid-Feingold Amendment would have actually ended the war. The problem is that the Reid-Feingold Amendment didn't defund anything. It required combat withdrawal of all combat troops.
Maybe you should read up on what you are talking about before you espouse more ignorance. You are the problem.
You're being disingenious here. To claim that the people who voted for a timeline to bring the troops home within months, but who would not vote to cut off funding, voted to extend the war, is bullshit.
They did not vote to end the war by defunding it, but they did not vote to extend it
Your party owns this war lock stock and c... and you better get used to that, because you are going down in 08 and it will be a long time before you get up again.
Too bad. Write a letter to bush. Don't you dare try and tie this around any neck but your own. He's your boy. You voted him in.
He killed your party.
Well, I do know what the generals said, and I'll trust their assessment. It would have forced a return to pre-surge levels sooner.
Saying that I don't know but then reassuring me it was a vote against the war is pretty much even more spin.
As I said, whatever you need to do to convince yourself that it is okay to vote for the people who voted 70 to 28 to continue the war at the current level of funding and pretend it is still an "anti-war" vote. Keep squinting, at some point it might look like it really is more than a cosmetic pre-vote before they got serious and funded the war up nicely.
When did I say I support Bush? Man, you are getting desperate again.
"Well, they voted to fully fund it, but that isn't to extend it!" But, but, but... Rubbish. If they believe that it should be ended they can do it. That they haven't is extending this. Either they do it because they think it is right, or they do it for political expediency but fully funding the war is what they most certainly voted FOR.
It isn't me you are trying to convince.