Hello. I have a question for those angry at Democrats for "caving" on the Iraq funding bill.

[Writer]

My question is: Under the circumstances, what specifically (pragmatic actions, now) did you expect Democrats to take in light of Bush's veto threats?

:popcorn: <-- I'm not here to fight, just to listen. :)

[madfloridian]

1. Send the bill back again and again.

.

[Jamastiene]

2. Continually vote to end the war and make him have to continually

veto every revision. In any case, simply standing one's ground would show a little backbone.

[Poll_Blind]

23. send the bill back again n/t

PB

[tkmorris]

3. I agree with the first two posters pretty much

Don't just refuse to send him another bill. That might perpetuate the "Dems won't fund the troops" meme. Send him the funding, again and again, but with the same provisos attached to it. Simply put, don't back down.

To be honest I am not one of the angriest Dems over this. You probably want the point of view of someone who is a good deal more steamed about it than I, but if congress were to take a more firm stance that is the way I would have liked to seen it done.

[zonmoy]

18. I agree although I think that each time he vetoed the bill

it should have triggered an impeachment vote in the house.

[nosmokes]

4. send the bill back again

[nosmokes]

5. send the bill back again

[nosmokes]

6. send the bill back again

[nosmokes]

7. send the bill back again

[nosmokes]

8. send the bill back again

[nosmokes]

9. send the bill back again

[nosmokes]

10. send the bill back again

[nosmokes]

11. send the bill back again

[nosmokes]

12. send the bill back again

[dajoki]

22. And may I add; send the bill back again

[snowbear]

13. OLD NEWZ: That was discussed here ad Nazism last week.....

Sorry you weren't here to join us.. That was last week.. the whole week.. and this is now.


Thank God we finally moved on.

[Lerkfish]

15. yeah, thank god more soldiers and innocent civilians are dead. thank god for that

just so we didn't have to face a discussion with real merit and consequence.

thank god people can continue to die so the beltway dems can continue business as usual.

and thank god you can call people nazis who want to end to the war and hold our elected leaders's feet to the fire for the reasons we elected them.


thank god.


:sarcasm:

[Donna Zen]

14. Plan B

The Democrats sent a bill to bush knowing that it would be vetoed, and yet, they had not developed a counter punch before hand. This non-move was mysteriously weak considering they knew what would happen.

Also, since the original bill had excepted three types of troops that would not be covered by the drawdown date 1) troops for training 2) troops to fight Al-Qaeda and 3) troops to support those troops, why did the Democrats fail to emphasize this point. BTW, those 3 groups would just about continue the same troop levels we have today.

So we have a so-so bill to begin with that was not explained (sold) and a plan that was not a plan. No Plan B.

[Totally Committed]

16. I would have liked to see two things from the Democrats:

(1) I would have liked to see EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM vote against the refunding. Unanimously, and proudly.

And...

(2) I would have liked to see them send the same bill back to Bush's desk again and again until it was clear it was he and not they who wanted this war.

As Howard Dean said yesterday, we hired them last November to WITHDRAW THE TROOPS and END THE WAR. Even with that mandate, they chose to thumb their noses at us and vote to refund anyway. What they need to remember is this: We put them into office, and we can take 'em out. We need to find the moral courage to do JUST THAT to ever single one of them who ignored our mandate and screwed the troops over. I don't care what "deal" was made... people are still dying every day, and now the Democrats have their blood on their hands. We have lost the moral high ground.

I am disgusted and disappointed in any who voted for that bill for any reason.

TC

[Berry Cool]

17. You guys said it all.

I have nothing to add.

[polichick]

19. Why bother sending it back?

Once the first bill was arrogantly vetoed, they shouldn't have bothered with another imo. They should've made an extemely strong statement about there being enough money in the pipeline to bring home the troops, and it was up to Bush to do so. Period.

Since it's up to the Dems to bring any further bill to the floor for a vote, couldn't it have ended right there??

[welshTerrier2]

20. unconscionable

start with this elementary truth: no matter how long we remain in Iraq, there is absolutely nothing the US military can do to make the situation there better. progress is NOT possible.

if you agree with that, and if you don't i'd love to hear why, then sending American troops to fight and be maimed and die and causing their family and friends to suffer is unconscionable. before even entertaining the political questions about vetoes and 2008 candidates and "looking weak" or supporting the troops, the question has to be answered as to how it can ever make sense to consign any human being to a deadly mission that cannot succeed.

now, if, even after that, one were to argue that "the Dems had no choice; they didn't have the votes", my response is that Reid had total control over what funding bills did, and did NOT, come to the floor for a vote. keep in mind that if there was no funding bill to vote on, then the Democratic Party would have effectively cut-off funds. bush could not veto a bill that was never sent to him.

so, that leaves the politics. first, that's an ugly reason, a damned ugly reason, to send American troops into a war zone. the Democratic Party created a disaster when they allowed bush to frame the issue about whether the Democrats were willing to leave American troops without food, clothing, shelter and weapons during the conduct of a war. the framing was bullshit from the start and I heard many Democrats make the exact same argument bush made. a pox on each one who did.

the correct framing was whether the war and occupation had any chance of success. it does NOT. and so, the correct policy, at some pace, was to cut-off funding. my personal preference was to immediately cut-off funding for any purpose other than the safe withdrawal of all American troops (including the Blackwater mercenaries). No more money should have been provided for offensive operations. the correct framing was to recognize that bush had failed and that the American people elected Democrats to put an end to it. Allowing bush to frame the issue as "supporting the troops" was a total failure of leadership and understanding of policy by the Democratic Party.

in my view, the Democrats had two choices. they could have sent the identical bill back to bush every single time he vetoed it. if bush didn't want to use the funds the Democrats provided, he was the one cutting off funding; not the Democrats. OR, the Democrats could have simply said "we gave you funding with conditions and you rejected it; bring all the troops home now." either of those two options would have been reasonable.

Reid and the Democrats caved in and chose option 3. Sorry, but option 3 was not an option at all. Slice it and dice it and spin it; the Democrats just funded a war and occupation with no hope of progress. There's only one word to describe what they did: unconscionable.

[sendero]

21. Tell him..,....

.... its the ONLY BILL he will get and then MEAN IT. If he vetoes it, HE is cutting off funding.

You think my way or the highway tactics only work for Repugs?

[Poll_Blind]

24. Send the damned bill back again and again. n/t

PB

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Send it back every week and

go back to their constituents and ask them to write or phone the White House and write LTTEs.

Denounce the war every time they get anywhere near a newspaper or broadcast reporter.

Don't compromise with the Bush administration on ANYTHING. They have proved their malevolence and incompetence again and again. Why do they deserve the respect that one gives to reasonable people?

[Writer]

26. Hello, everyone.

Thank you for your answers... and not fighting about it.

Someone actually recommended this thread? SNORT!

:hi:

[malikstein]

27. Don't pass a funding bill.

In that case, the Pentagon would be obliged to start withdrawing troops while there is still money available to do it. The president could not veto a bill that wasn't passed, so his ability to control the situation would be severely diminished.

It looks like the Democrats decided to show us a bit of kabuki, then to back the occupation that leadership has favored all along.

[sampsonblk]

28. Send him the same bill again

If he vetoes it again, tell him to call for an appointment when he's ready to sign.

[ludwigb]

29. LOL the answer is so simple an unaminous

No one is arguing at all.

The better question is: why are Democrats continuing to fund this immoral war?

They (those who voted for the supplemental) should have to justify that war. And they can't.

What are we going to do about it? Just give these guys another term?