Democrats now own the Iraq war

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They just gave Bush a blank check to warmonger. Remind me why I donated to the Democrats last year?

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats aren't going to ever stand up to Bush.
It just passed the Senate by an even larger margin than the original Iraq War Resolution.

The media has made Democrats more afraid of Mr. 28% than their own base.  Their reporting on this is the most biased reporting I've ever seen. They want to keep their war going. Well, everyone's to blame now, Bush, the Republicans, the Democrats, and the media for the mass killing of brown people.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Does anyone still think that the Democrats are going to actually pass a binding resolution to end this war before the next Presidential term? Nope. Today was a vote to continue the war until at least 2009, if not decades longer. The Democrats are not going to do anything meaningful to end the war.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats are not going to do anything meaningful to end the war.

By which you mean "pull American troops out of Iraq", right? The two things are rather different.

There wasn't a war there before we got there.

Does anyone still think that the Democrats are going to actually pass a binding resolution to end this war before the next Presidential term? Nope. Today was a vote to continue the war until at least 2009, if not decades longer. The Democrats are not going to do anything meaningful to end the war.

My question is this, assuming the Dems can pass a JR (and get past a filabuster in the senate)...how do you think public opinion would take to them being impotent as to being able to actually get a veto override and the troops home?

I mean, i think it could go either way, they could look noble and idealistic in the face of sure defeat, or they could look even more ineffective (Granted, I agree, they haven't used their mandate to end the war).

But I don't know, Bush is a lame duck, and can afford to just veto this thing and look like the big old bad guy and hope that history justifies his call(s). Its obvious Bush doesn't give a damn about congressional and state Republicans and cares more about being proved right (in the long run, if it happens) than saving his party's ass. And in a sense, it might be wise, in that Americans hate to lose.

Vietnam hurt this country while we were there, but I think pulling out hurt this country's pride which took a lot of time to heal. I don't think a President wants to do that...especially one that has to face re-election.

I, sadly, think that if a Democratic President wants to bring the troops home, (even if its the absolutely clear right thing to do), may need to conceed that he's taking one for the team.

Shrug

Umm, you don't need to over-ride a veto to end the war.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Upon closer inspection, it really seems like they just surrendered. I don't see any "compromise" here, just the Democrats giving in to Bush. This is why Pelosi and Reid should not be leading the Democrats - they're too soft. They stand up to Bush for a month and just surrender. Absolutely disgraceful.

Hey, it's got the word "accountablity" in its name, and its got some non-binding benchmarks for Bush to ignore that were written by a Republican Senator. That will really show Bush who is boss.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes Yes, I suppose you're attacking this from the supply.  Considering that part now seems err moot with the Senate vote...I seem to think the Dems would now have to pass some act/bill etc that ends authorization, and then override it when Bush vetoes.

But, I dont think the dems would try to cut funding now, that would be painted as an attack on the troops and not Bush. (I think attacking the funding was probably the easier, but less proper path).

They sent a bill fully funding it, and Bush refused to sign because it wasn't a blank check. The Democrats blinked. They are cowards that deserve to lose.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It passed the Senate 80-14. Don't ask me about the 3 Republican nay votes.


Senators voting no:
Boxer (D-CA)
Burr (R-NC)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Obama (D-IL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes Yes, I suppose you're attacking this from the supply.  Considering that part now seems err moot with the Senate vote...I seem to think the Dems would now have to pass some act/bill etc that ends authorization, and then override it when Bush vetoes.

But, I dont think the dems would try to cut funding now, that would be painted as an attack on the troops and not Bush. (I think attacking the funding was probably the easier, but less proper path).

They sent a bill fully funding it, and Bush refused to sign because it wasn't a blank check. The Democrats blinked. They are cowards that deserve to lose.

So we go back to my question, why not override the veto? Would it be worth it?

With which 67 sane Senators?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats are in a crappy position. I give them credit for passing a bill two weeks ago that set a timeline. THeir hands are kind of tied on this issue, as they don't have the votes to override a veto.

Reality is that the war is not going to end as long as there is a Republican in the White House.

Hopefully by the end of September enough of the Republicans will cross over to override Bush's veto (we need 16 of them in the Senate).

16 Republican Senators? I'll settle for an end to world hunger and a cure for cancer by September.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, I think you took out quite a few of the Republicans, last november, who were the more disposed to take your position.

What you left seems to be a much more stubborn bloc.

Burr, Coburn, and Enzi did vote no. It could have been because of other stuff in the bill, or they could have forgotten their usual brainwashing pills.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, FreeRepublic is officially on another planet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839369/posts

Yeah, that's right, everyone who voted for this bill is a leftist.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, FreeRepublic is officially on another planet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839369/posts

Yeah, that's right, everyone who voted for this bill is a leftist.

Might explain the rationale of the 3 Rs.

Yeah, they're not sane, they're probably part of that 12% that doesn't want to raise the minimum wage. 

Anyone who thinks that the solution to Iraq is passing some bill over Bush's veto is also insane. By being a hardline extremist, Bush has made the only option of ending the war before 2009 be defunding, and the Democrats just demonstrated that they are too afraid to ever do that.

On the bright side, this bill finally increases the federal minimum wage.  I congratulate the Dems on that.

What a trade, getting something that 85% of this country wants by giving Bush a blank check for a war that only 35% of this country wants.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats were morons. They could have kept sending Bush the same bill they sent him already. Or they could have sent him exactly what he wanted, except that it would be funded by a massive tax hike on the rich. They could have at least preventing Bush from increasing the number of troops to 200,000. Or a zillion of other things. Instead, they totally folded. I don't see how they're going to stand up to Bush now that they've established that they are a bunch of cowards. Bush will keep raising and the Democrats will keep folding. Taking Iraq off the table didn't work for the Democrats in 2002, and it won't work for the Democrats in 2007.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the Democrats had held their ground, one of two outcomes would have happened

1. War ends middle of next year at the latest
2. Bush blatantly acts in defiance of Congress

Obviously #1 would be the best option, but #2 isn't going to be good for the Republicans instead.

Now that this Congress has shown that they fold against Mr. 28%, we're going to have to wait until January 20, 2009 to start a withdraw process, that if we're lucky will complete by the middle of 2009.

This just extended the war by AT LEAST 1 year, possibly many. Bush gets to do whatever he wants in Iraq for the remaining 20 months of his Presidency. Huge victory for Bush. Huge defeat for America.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the Democrats had held their ground, one of two outcomes would have happened

1. War ends middle of next year at the latest
2. Bush blatantly acts in defiance of Congress

Obviously #1 would be the best option, but #2 isn't going to be good for the Republicans instead.

He already did #2 already when he vetoed the initial bill.

And if he did #2 again, then what?  Do the Democrats just keep doing it over and over again?  That will not exactly be difficult to spin into a negative light against the Democrats.

Why isn't that Bush's problem?

Actually, I read this covers only until September 30.

Yeah, but the Democrats have shown that they can't stand up to Bush now, and I doubt that will change in Sept.

If the Democrats had held their ground, one of two outcomes would have happened

1. War ends middle of next year at the latest
2. Bush blatantly acts in defiance of Congress

Obviously #1 would be the best option, but #2 isn't going to be good for the Republicans instead.

Now that this Congress has shown that they fold against Mr. 28%, we're going to have to wait until January 20, 2009 to start a withdraw process, that if we're lucky will complete by the middle of 2009.

This just extended the war by AT LEAST 1 year, possibly many. Bush gets to do whatever he wants in Iraq for the remaining 20 months of his Presidency. Huge victory for Bush. Huge defeat for America.

How does stopping a supplemental funding bill, that largely pays for the "surge" bring an end to the war any faster? It seems fairly theatrical to suggest it would. If the Dems really want to end the whole thing they will need to either deauthorize the war (which isn't going to happen) or cut the actual funding (not a supplemental) in up coming fiscal year.

Keeping it real - I don't think the Dems want to be responsible for the chaos that would result from simply defunding or deauthorizing the war. They want a new direction (for the most part - the Dems are far from a unified front on any issue - this one not being an exception) not a mess. To get that, Bush either has to change his mind (which isn't going to happen without long term pressure building  on the GOP - and maybe not even then) or a new President has to take office.

I took a moment to surf some of the more Democrat leaning web sites - and the number of folks pitching fits about this and cursing their own party was quite surprising to me. The expectations of these folks has out stripped any achievable outcome completely.

The easiest time to stand up to Bush was now. They didn't. Bush gets to wage war however he pleases until his failed Presidency comes to an end 20 months from now.