Democrats now own the Iraq war

[bullmoose88]

True, bullmoose.

I think its unfortunate, though I dont think even with the more reason-friendly republicans, you probably wouldnt get the votes.

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.

You're still how many Republicans short, even if those 3 decided to end this mess?

[Boris]

I couldn't have been the only one here that saw this coming. The only thing this Democratic Congress has done with regards to Iraq is engage in meaningless political posturing. From that perspective, why risk cutting funds? You might as well give (with the 'we don't have enough votes' excuse) the President the 'blank check' and let him continue to take the fall as the death toll piles up.

[J. J.]

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'm going to be blunt on this point.  51 Senators, after a great deal of fuss, can end a the filibuster without violating the rules; it involved fatiguing your opponents.  Neither party wants to.  It would have been easier in 2005.

[bullmoose88]

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'm going to be blunt on this point.  51 Senators, after a great deal of fuss, can end a the filibuster without violating the rules; it involved fatiguing your opponents.  Neither party wants to.  It would have been easier in 2005.

Oh the nuclear option. Would the democrats who joined the gang of 14 turn around and do that? if push came to shove?

Not that the filabuster was the main point of that post...rather the veto override.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[bullmoose88]

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.

[TheresNoMoney]

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

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[J. J.]

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'm going to be blunt on this point.  51 Senators, after a great deal of fuss, can end a the filibuster without violating the rules; it involved fatiguing your opponents.  Neither party wants to.  It would have been easier in 2005.

Oh the nuclear option. Would the democrats who joined the gang of 14 turn around and do that? if push came to shove?

No, the neutron bomb option.  The minority party has to keep more than 1/3 the majority in the chamber at all times.  They will eventually tire (after a few months).

Nobody has the will to do it.

[TheresNoMoney]

[quote author=bullmoose88 link=topic=57682.msg1197364#msg1197364 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.

True. I'm trying to look on the bright side here.

Hopefully we will figure something out by the end of September when the funding is scheduled to run out again.

[Sam Spade]

This whole thread is kinda funny, in an obvious sort of way. 

I predicted after November last year that this was exactly what would happen, and I will gladly take credit for being right, b/c as I suspected the Dems would take the smart move and this is the smart move.

We'll see what happens in September and exactly where Bush wants to lead Iraq - that will be where this debate takes us next.

Just FYI, there is no way Democrats will try and cut funding during 2008, if that's where the situation goes.

[The Dowager Mod]

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.

Look at the long term not just right now, The longer the war goes on the worse it will be for the republicans in 2008.

[Smash255]

I would have voted against this if I was in the Congress or Senate and would have only voted for a bill with the timeline.  In all honesty though Scoonie hit the nail head on.  The Dems were really caught between a rock and a hard place.  they could have kept giving Bush a bill with a timeline and just hoped either he would eventually gave or enough Republicans would jump on, or run out of $$ and hope at that point Bush does the right thing and brings them home.  problem is, if that happened, could we count on Bush actually bring them home.  Would he keep them there & blame the Dems for not funding them or would he uptick this debacle as bit further and Iran-Contranize the funding.  The Dems did gave and they really needed to show more backbone, but fact of the matter is they don't have enough GOP votes and/or their majority isn't large enough to do what really needs to be done with Bush in the White House.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Hash]

Great job Democraps. They just lost my support. They were elected to Congress partly to stop the war, and what do those numbnuts do?

I'm now an Independent.

[??????????]

Bush wins; checkmate.

[KEmperor]

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.

Don't you know that as soon as the American troops leave all fighting will stop and everyone will join hands in peace and love?

[Ebowed]

Bush wins; checkmate.

Too bad he can't apply this winning streak to the actual war, huh?

[nlm]

I think folks may be reading way to much into a vote on a supplemental funding bill. Listening to some Democrats - it seems many believed that Congress could some how end the war with this little bit of legislation.

[Democratic Hawk]

Don't you know that as soon as the American troops leave all fighting will stop and everyone will join hands in peace and love?

Of course, as far as many on the left are concerned it's the US et al forces doing all the killing and maiming in Iraq. Strange, isn't it, given that it is it Iraqi killing Iraqi, Sunni killing Shi'a (and vice versa), terrorists killing civilians, ...

No way in hell will the withdrawal of US et al troops be some all-resolving panacea to ending the violence in Iraq. Any one who thinks otherwise seriously needs to think again

The one thing that stands out in this vote is the extent to which the Republicans are united on Iraq and the extent to which, when push came to shove that is, the Democrats are divided

The right wing nuts are going to have a ball of a time spinning this one to great effect, while the left wing fruits will be screaming blue murder at those Democrats who voted in favor of it

As Scoonie, rightly points out, the war isn't going to end as long as there is a Republican in the White House

Dave

[bullmoose88]

How many times are you gonna and post essentiallyt the same thing Dave?

[Angel of Death]

This is all going perfectly according to the political handbook with the title "pushing away others from the center". The clamoring of the Democrats against the war has stuck, they don't get accused of "putting the troops in harm way" and the war continues at the detriment of the presidential aspirations of the Republicans. In other words, the Democrats have given Bush enough rope to hang himself as well as his party. Cynical, but effective.

Democrats: just good enough to be less evil than the Republicans, but no more. jfern has finally realized that. Too bad BRTD doesn't either.

[Democratic Hawk]

This is all going perfectly according to the political handbook with the title "pushing away others from the center". The clamoring of the Democrats against the war has stuck, they don't get accused of "putting the troops in harm way" and the war continues at the detriment of the presidential aspirations of the Republicans. In other words, the Democrats have given Bush enough rope to hang himself as well as his party. Cynical, but effective.

Never thought of it like that but then I've never been a particularly cynical soul

And here's me worrying that the right wing hacks out there would spin a pretty divided Democratic caucus against the Democrats and their hopes for winning for the presidency and retaining control of Congress in 2008

For Democrats to oppose the war is one thing, cutting off funding for the lads and lasses on the ground is quite another. Democrats who voted in favor did the right thing and in doing so voted to increase the federal minimum wage . I wonder if that's why Burr, Coburn and Enzi voted against it?

When you have a President of one party, and a Congress of another, especially one which lacks the numbers to override any presidential veto, then trade-offs have to be made. It's the only way Democrats are going to get things done, unless they can secure the support of enough Republicans to get to that magic 288 or 67 (and that's not allowing for any Democrats to break rank). And getting 55 House or 16 Senate Republicans to break with Bush on Iraq will be the day pigs can fly

Dave

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is all going perfectly according to the political handbook with the title "pushing away others from the center". The clamoring of the Democrats against the war has stuck, they don't get accused of "putting the troops in harm way" and the war continues at the detriment of the presidential aspirations of the Republicans. In other words, the Democrats have given Bush enough rope to hang himself as well as his party. Cynical, but effective.

Democrats: just good enough to be less evil than the Republicans, but no more. jfern has finally realized that. Too bad BRTD doesn't either.

Do you think jfern is not going to vote Democratic in 2008? He realizes that getting a Democratic president is the only way to end the war. So do I. Sorry I'm not going to waste my vote voting for your worthless hero Saint Ralph.

[Reaganfan]

Well, our good pal Ralph has made clear if Hillary is the nominee...he will likely enter the race. With Hillary not being staunch anti-war, we may have a GOP victory once again.