Ok, so what would happen if the DEMS refused to budge on the Iraq time-line?

[RiverStone]

I don't get it.

An overwhelming majority of American's support holding Shrub accountable to a time-line on Iraq. Why the DEMS would capitulate to rethug temper tantrums is beyond logic and reason. Even with the knowledge that currently we do not have enough votes to over ride a veto, it seems that at the very least, the DEMS on the Hill owe it to the voters to stand firm on demanding an Iraq time line.

Doing it on principles alone seems plenty of justification for this voter!

I am a loyal DEM life long voter - I will not abandon my party; but it feels as if they are leaving me.

So what would happen if we simply refused to fund Shrub's war machine? Can someone play out the news flaashes? If we never draw a line in the sand, Shrub will never compromise. Why not take it to the 11th hour and see what happens. The DEMS promised in November NO BLANK CHECKS for Shrub's war.

Now it feels like they are more worried about how they will look in 08, then standing up to the decider who will keep running this war into the next Presidency (which better be a DEM!).

[AndyA]

1. It's my understanding that the war would end, and the troops would come home.

Just like that. No money, no war.

Congress would have given Bush and the troops the funding Bush asked for, and Bush vetoed it and ended the war with his veto. There's more to it, but that's the basic gist of it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. But didn't that already happen?

They sent him 2 bills and he vetoed both of them. :shrug:

[AndyA]

9. But they keep coming back with more bills.

As long as they do that, there's the possibility of funding the war. They just need to say, "We're sorry Mr. President, but there are many other pressing issues, and we do not have time to redo this again. You've vetoed everything we've sent you, even though we gave you more than you asked for. You just weren't willing to accept the terms of the bill for timetables and troop withdrawal.

You ended the war with your vetoes, Mr. President."

War over.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. Amen to that plan

Sounds a lot like the plan John Edwards is promoting. :) And that is one of the many things I like about him.

[sharp_stick]

12. Not until Bush was able to kill several hundred more of them

and blame every last one on the Democratic Congress (sorry, Democrat Congress)

Anybody that thinks shrub would bring the troops home as soon as they ran out of money is just kidding themselves, he gives so little a shit about anybody over there that he would sooner remove what little body armor they have, blame the Democrats, and watch them get shot to shit by Iraqis.

The really sad thing about this is that the media would allow him to spin it this way and the "average" American would buy it.

[Rosemary2205]

24. Profound statement.

and a viewpoint I have not rolled around in my head previously.

I had in my head, Bush is a homicidal dick. And I had "the press is kissing Bush's butt". But I didn't put it together before like you did.

Thanks for something new to roll around in that half empty noggin of mine. :hi:

[jwirr]

16. And what will happen in 2008? Are we sure that they will not twist

this into a message of weakness and abandonment of the US military. I want out of there but not at the cost of 2008. If we can win then we get it all, if we lose the House or Senate or WH again we are up a creek. If we win we are out of Iraq for sure, if we lose we may be there for the long term that *ss and co. talk about.

[AndyA]

19. The Dems are going to lose their base quickly if they keep this up.

We want the war to end.

We want the troops to come home.

We want oversight of the Executive Branch.

We want habeus corpus restored.

We want the powers of the unitary executive stripped.

And we want accountability in the form of impeachment for crimes against the American people.

So far, none of this has happened. We've seen "non-binding" resolutions which mean jack squat, and a bunch of lip service that so far hasn't slowed down Bush at all. The GOP could have done that.

[RiverStone]

28. It would take a lot of doing nothing to get me to vote for a...

3rd party.

But, I'm both very surprised and disappointed that the DEMS have rolled over so easily to Shrub on Iraq. I never would have predicted such politically motivated b.s. when I was celebrating our sweeping victory last November.

I agree AndyA with your post and fear that the more DEMS don't do - the more they become indistinguishable from the rethugs I detest. That's saying ton's considering I'm a life-long DEM voter, campaign volunteer, and have NEVER voted rethug.

If Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold split off in protest for DEM inaction on ending the war, and ran as 3rd party folks (unlikely) - I'd seriously consider voting that direction.

[BuyingThyme]

2. It would be democracy.

Pelosi would not go for something like that.

[Raven]

3. What really bothers me is my Congressman's website...not

a mention of the Iraq budget fight. No explanation of his vote. He was elected due to the hard work of the peace movement here in NH. I've emailed him and I either get an automated response or no response at all. I'm starting to look around for another candidate to run against him who will keep their promises.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Same experience here in Kansas, Raven

Peace activists worked HARD to get Nancy Boyda elected. She used to be part of our group; she even helped organize our vigils. Then the day she was sworn in, she decided to support the surge. It's been pretty much downhill ever since.

[RiverStone]

21. When the desire for power...

Is more then the desire to stand on the principles that got Nancy (and other's that gave lip service to the peace movement) elected - then our democracy is not working.

I may be a loyal DEM, but I'd like to hold every politician accountable that said one thing to get elected, but did something else when in power

Has Nancy ever offered an explanation for supporting further escalation of Shrub's insane occupation?

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. No she hasn't

And when I criticize her or ask questions, I am politely asked to be quiet.

[snappyturtle]

5. Maybe the troops could come home? n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

6. Here's the money,

here's the time table. Take it or leave it. That should be our final answer.

But, the Vichy Democrats still control the party. They refuse to hold Bush and his band of war criminals accountable.

[MadBadger]

8. Too late for that. Breaking on MSNBC, looks like they made a deal

No timeline as it appears.

[Az]

10. Ask the opposite question

What does Shrub have to gain by agreeing to a timetable. Nothing. It is his undoing. He can safely spin any attempt to force a timetable as politics playing with the troop's lives. There is no meaningful way for the Dems to force it through without it blowing back in their face.

In the mean time the people are getting increasingly pissed at George. The quagmire is sucking him in faster and faster. The Dems best course politically is to sit back and let him hang himself.

Meanwhile the repug candidates running for Prez are faced with a dilema. Do they back George's increasingly unpopular war or do they tear him down and thus distance themselves from him? George has placed the repugs in a huge pickle. And the Dems can let them out of it by playing political games with the troops. Or they can let them stew by not playing games.

[MadHound]

17. Or the Dems could do what they were elected to do last fall,

And that is end the war ASAP. Easiest, simplest way to do that is to defund the war, hold up each and every supplemental war funding bill in committee forever, and force the troops home. Use the power of the bully pulpit to tell America what they're doing and why.

But no, the Dems are going to play political games while innocents continue to die.

[jwirr]

18. I think the Dems are doing one other thing, while he spins in the air

they are systematically stripping him of his front line supporters through the investigations into the criminal actions of this administration. Soon he will be standing alone. And we all know he is a coward when he does not have someone standing between him and the consequences of what he is doing.

[Az]

23. Agreed, the investigations continue

They are going to strip everything from him and leave him a tattered wreck before the people to see what they allowed in their name.

[frylock]

11. the dems just took ownership of this war..

nice job, COWARDS!!!

[texastoast]

13. Maybe they would appear to have some integrity?

On the campaign promises?

Right now, they are acting like crawfishing wusses. I'm very disgusted with them. They should be calling for Dickie boy's and shrubbie's head.

"Now it feels like they are more worried about how they will look in 08, then standing up to the decider who will keep running this war into the next Presidency."

There you are. It's all about THEM and staying in power whatever they have to do. :thumbsdown: I wish we could find someone who would be big enough to do the right thing.

[Amonester]

14. Let me put on my *tin foil hat* TM (again) here...

:tinfoilhat:

1. We know the blackwater & co junta will never give in (a bit like the gestapo in youknoWhat) their 2000 coup d'etat.
2. The Dems hold their promises and refuse to fund AWOL bu$che's war machine.
3. The war-profiteering criminal$ in the bfee, the cia and the pentagon call their buddies in al-kkkaeda via the bin forgotten family.
4. Something really bad happens (either here, there, or anywhere...).
5. The terrarist$ in the Whitehouse tell their lying m$m shills to blame the Dems over & over for forcing them to cut & run...

:tinfoilhat:

What good would my (and many) tin foil hat do "if" (this *idotic* junta is sooooo predictable...) it *became* real?



Edited for (I dunno What)... :banghead:

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Add this to your tinfouil moment

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20


Been posting all over the place... you are closer to the turth than most people realize

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. But they overwhelmingly disapprove of cutting off funding.

Essentially, it's a no-win for Democrats.

[damntexdem]

25. They would show that they had at least enough spine ...

to follow the electorate like sheep. We already knew they didn't have the nerve to lead. Now they stand revealed as not even having the cojones of sheep.

[RiverStone]

32. And we need to remember who they are!

Now they stand revealed... (you said) --- I hope so.

We need to track, take notes, and remind those gutless folks that many of us spent countless hours working on behalf of their fancy seat on The Hill.

They should never ever feel again that they can take our DEM votes for granted.

I want names --- and hopefully their names will be clear as this vote comes around later in the week.
Then we can work to change the party from within - change it to reflect the majority will of the voters!

[leftofthedial]

27. I'd eat my hat

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. They'd have to acknowledge the obvious, that the war is lost, and funding it is immoral.

Alas, that requires courage and honesty, a notable lack of which is all too apparent.

[RiverStone]

30. And they are not doing that because???

They don't want to look bad in 08?

I can't come up with any other rational explaination...:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. That is the only rational explanation - as much as they'd like us to believe otherwise.