Dems next move

[LadyT]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/02/congress.iraq/index.html

How should the dems play this? Should they be hardlined and send Chimp the same deal or should they pu$$y out and give him what he wants which is obviously their back up plan.

"Anticipating Bush's veto, Democrats began crafting a new bill, which strips the troop withdrawal language and adds a series of benchmarks that would measure the progress of the Iraqi government."

 

[Cancel7]

Morally, they should cut off funding, today. Get on television and explain to the masses, that they will fully fund safe troop withdrawal.

Politically, bush has now done the dems the great favor of keeping sole ownership of this war, and the dems are going to have all three branches come 08. If they cut funding, there are political risks, which they won't take. I would, but they won't. So a lot more people are going to die, and the dems are going to gain further majorities in the house, senate, and take the white house.

 

[Cypress]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/02/congress.iraq/index.html

How should the dems play this? Should they be hardlined and send Chimp the same deal or should they pu$$y out and give him what he wants which is obviously their back up plan.

"Anticipating Bush's veto, Democrats began crafting a new bill, which strips the troop withdrawal language and adds a series of benchmarks that would measure the progress of the Iraqi government."

I was listening to Thom Hartmann today, and he said they should keep voting on the same bill over and over, and sending it to the chimp over and over. Because each time they vote, they'll pick up a few more republicans. Republicans who don't want ownership of their war any longer.

 

[Cancel7]

I was listening to Thom Hartmann today, and he said they should keep voting on the same bill over and over, and sending it to the chimp over and over. Because each time they vote, they'll pick up a few more republicans. Republicans who don't want ownership of their war any longer.

That's an interesting idea.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"I was listening to Thom Hartmann today, and he said they should keep voting on the same bill over and over, and sending it to the chimp over and over. Because each time they vote, they'll pick up a few more republicans. Republicans who don't want ownership of their war any longer."

while I am certainly a fan of political stalemates, not on this issue. You do NOT screw around with the funding of the troops. Find another issue to assert your new found power.

Or get kicked in the teeth when it bites you in the ass.

 

[Cancel7]

"I was listening to Thom Hartmann today, and he said they should keep voting on the same bill over and over, and sending it to the chimp over and over. Because each time they vote, they'll pick up a few more republicans. Republicans who don't want ownership of their war any longer."

while I am certainly a fan of political stalemates, not on this issue. You do NOT screw around with the funding of the troops. Find another issue to assert your new found power.

Or get kicked in the teeth when it bites you in the ass.

A stalemate takes two people to be stalling. So everytime bush vetoed the bill, he could be held just as responsible. That would be the PR game then, and you don't know who is going to win that one. They would both be throwing the dice, not just the dems.

 

[Cypress]

"I was listening to Thom Hartmann today, and he said they should keep voting on the same bill over and over, and sending it to the chimp over and over. Because each time they vote, they'll pick up a few more republicans. Republicans who don't want ownership of their war any longer."

while I am certainly a fan of political stalemates, not on this issue. You do NOT screw around with the funding of the troops. Find another issue to assert your new found power.

Or get kicked in the teeth when it bites you in the ass.

the troops are funded through July, the Governement Accounting Office and Pentagon say.

That said, I'm not sure how realistic it is, to keep sending bush the same bill over and over. Just tossed it out as an idea

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"That said, I'm not sure how realistic it is, to keep sending bush the same bill over and over. Just tossed it out as an idea"

Well, in my opinion, if you really want to piss off the public... go with it. Because I think that is all you will accomplish. The Reps would bury you with it.

 

[Cypress]

A stalemate takes two people to be stalling. So everytime bush vetoed the bill, he could be held just as responsible. That would be the PR game then, and you don't know who is going to win that one. They would both be throwing the dice, not just the dems.

actually, you know what I just thought of? Supposedly, congress can continue to fund the war through short-term (two or three month) emergency spending measures.

And for the full appropriation (the one bush vetoed), they can keep sending it to him, over and over, each time with a little more republican support - until Bush either has to cave, or until the republicans decide they want to destroy themselves in the 2008 election. And possibly for the next ten years.

 

[Cypress]

"That said, I'm not sure how realistic it is, to keep sending bush the same bill over and over. Just tossed it out as an idea"

Well, in my opinion, if you really want to piss off the public... go with it. Because I think that is all you will accomplish. The Reps would bury you with it.

Every poll out there says the public overwhelmingly supports the Dem bill, and want a timeline for withdrawl. There are ways to make the chimp have to keep vetoing a timeline - over and over - without starving the troops or leaving them without equipment. I think. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes only fund it until September when the results of the surge are supposed to come in.
then submit a seperate withdrawl bill.

 

[Cancel7]

"That said, I'm not sure how realistic it is, to keep sending bush the same bill over and over. Just tossed it out as an idea"

Well, in my opinion, if you really want to piss off the public... go with it. Because I think that is all you will accomplish. The Reps would bury you with it.

Why? Because the republicans are going to keep repeating "they're not funding the troops"? Are we really that simplistic as a nation? I think it's an argument that could be won, if anyone had the guts to take it on, right to the end. Stand up for what you believe.

They should cut funding, and tell the people, look, we are not leaving them stranded, we are going to spend whatever we need to in order to get them home safely. Say it as many times as you need to, until these morons underestand what it means. Instead of worrying over who gets pissed off, they might think about the people who are dying. This war is over SF. It's just a matter of when it's called. So, what do you say to the people who die in the meantime? If it was my kid, no politician who went along with this charade would get much of a chance to say anything to me about it. But I would consider it an out and out murder, and react accordingly.

 

[Cancel7]

Yes only fund it until September when the results of the surge are supposed to come in.
then submit a seperate withdrawl bill.

usc, that is the smart thing to do politically, I agree. BUT, bush is already saying don't expect much by then. Ok, so we know it, already we know what is going down in September. So again, this brings me back to, what in hell do you tell a parent who loses their child between now and then? When we already know the outcome? This is immoral.

 

[Lao Tse]

So what do you guys want to do about "radical" islamic terrorism? It is true that if we don't fight them there, we will fight them here. I prefer to not let them come here, via radical immigration reform which will disallow immigrants from theocratic nations, who think in that mode and are hostile to religious freedom. Would you guys be against that?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Darla... I do not disagree with your assesment. I think they should cut the funding (other than to bring the troops home) if that is what they truly believe. I disagree with the 'it is murder' portion.

However, I do think if they try to play their games with the non-binding resolutions and arbitrary time-lines, it will bite them in the ass.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Every poll out there says the public overwhelmingly supports the Dem bill, and want a timeline for withdrawl. There are ways to make the chimp have to keep vetoing a timeline - over and over - without starving the troops or leaving them without equipment. I think. Maybe I'm wrong."

Attach it to something else he wants. I think you are correct to say that there are ways to annoy the hell out of him with the timeline... but I do not believe this is the way.

 

[Cancel7]

Darla... I do not disagree with your assesment. I think they should cut the funding (other than to bring the troops home) if that is what they truly believe. I disagree with the 'it is murder' portion.

However, I do think if they try to play their games with the non-binding resolutions and arbitrary time-lines, it will bite them in the ass.

It's depraved indifference to human life SF. For political purposes. On bush's part because he is desperately trying to hand this war off to the next President in the hopes that he can get his little minions to claim in "history" books that bush didn't lose the war. And on the dems part because they know it's lost, and they know how to stop it, have the power to stop it, and won't do it for political reasons. So you know, in a criminal court you can be charged with depraved indifference when a death occurs as a result of your actions or inactions, and do real time for it too. And if I lost someone I loved, I'd consider that murder.

It might bite them in the ass. But people do respect those who stand up for what they believe, and won't back down. They can make the case, and then let the chips fall where they may. It's not certain how it would turn out yet.

 

[Cypress]

"Every poll out there says the public overwhelmingly supports the Dem bill, and want a timeline for withdrawl. There are ways to make the chimp have to keep vetoing a timeline - over and over - without starving the troops or leaving them without equipment. I think. Maybe I'm wrong."

Attach it to something else he wants. I think you are correct to say that there are ways to annoy the hell out of him with the timeline... but I do not believe this is the way.

Perhaps congress should just revoke his war powers authority granted under the 2002 resolution. I think that is constitutional.

Everybody knows bush is just trying to run out the clock, and tread water until January 20, 2009. He doesn't want an Iraq withdrawl on his legacy. Because Iraq is lost. There's no way around that. There is not going to be a jeffersonian democracy there, and islamic parties are going to control the government. Whether we're there or not.

People's lives are on the line. Trying to run out the clock and hand it off to the next president to deal with, is beyond immoral. It's pure evil.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Then end it. Do as Darla suggests. Cut the funding with the exception of providing transport home. Explain the case to the public and DO IT.

I think the Dems want this to drag out as well. They want this to be a 2008 election issue. They do not want to make their stand until next year.... or at least that is the way it appears to me.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Darla..."And on the dems part because they know it's lost, and they know how to stop it, have the power to stop it, and won't do it for political reasons."

I agree 100% with the above.

"It might bite them in the ass. But people do respect those who stand up for what they believe, and won't back down. They can make the case, and then let the chips fall where they may. It's not certain how it would turn out yet."

To be clear... I mean the non-binding resolutions for a timeline over and over again would bite them in the ass. IF they were to stop funding and take a stand, that is a different story entirely. I think that would actually benefit them. I just don't think they want to do it until mid-2008.