we need the American Public to pressure their senators to end this war, call them email them stop by their offices, they will get the hint
We should be putting them to the wall to change their minds

It is totally B.S. to claim the Democrats cannot stop Bush as long as they don't have the votes to override a veto. As smart as he is, Lee Hamilton, should know this assertion is totally nonsense.

What Hamilton is said is true only if the Democrats keep shooting themselves in their collective foot by passing war funding bills in which they try to dictate strategy or policy to the President. They have been working too hard, and have needlessly frustrated themselves.

I'll say it again. Stopping Bush is as easy as falling off a log. All the Democrats have to do is not send him another funding bill when he asks for one. Don't send him a bill. The President doesn't get what he wants without a funding bill, and he can't veto a nothing. If the Dems don't send him anything, then there is nothing the President can do that would require a veto override.

To see to it that Duh'bya doesn't get a funding bill, all the Democrats have to do is vote against any future funding bills in a straight, up and down vote. Their majority in the House of Representatives will guarantee the bill fails right there. Then the process is repeated enough times until the President is forced to withdraw the troops - and that's the end.

This is not making pawns out of the troops. Duh'bya has stated that he can keep the military units in Iraq for quite some time without further funding. He will just have to juggle his military budget a bit. Eventually, however, he will have to bring them home if the money is stopped. So, the soldiers will be safe, and no danger need come to them, if the money stops.

What it really comes down to is whether the Democrats have the guts to follow through on their convictions. This shouldn't be hard if, in fact, the American public is as dead set against the war as the Democratic politicians say they are. If the majority of Americans are against the war, then Democrats in Congress have little to worry about voter backlash for doing what the public wants.

But, whatever the Democrats do, please get them to stop with the B.S. claims that they are powerless. Their claims of "victimization" by big bad Bushie, whose veto they cannot override, is all so much eyewash for the ignorant public who don't know what kind of crap it really is. This is nothing more than political grandstanding.

The Dem-controlled U.S. Congress, which can't get anything passed or anything done, which has record low approval ratings, sets progress "benchmarks" for the Iraqis.

Who are they to lecture any other political body on getting work done?

The Reed proposal is baloney. It will leave a large US presence in Iraq. This will continue to incite Arabs and the usual violence will continue.

The Reed amendment is designed to placate voters who voted for democrats who promised to end the Iraq occupation.

The Reed proposal is baloney. It will leave a large US presence in Iraq. This will continue to incite Arabs and the usual violence will continue.

The Reed amendment is designed to placate voters who voted for democrats who promised to end the Iraq occupation.

If they'd arrest the miserable failure already, that would stop him.

But at least we're safer, (not!):

http://www.slate.com/id/2170564/fr/flyout

Who are they to lecture any other political body on getting work done?

Posted by: Bruce | July 18, 2007 10:40 AM

Well certainly not the republican "do nothing" congress of the last 6 years. They held an overwhelming number of votes and yet did zippo, nada, blanco. Your feigned outrage is laughable.

Bill R., a little eduction here. Just as the Dems held up GOP Congressional action in the past six years, the GOP is doing the same to the Dems this year. The Republican Congress have sound Energy legislation that the Dems held up, for instance. Or Social Security reform, as another example.
However, that so-called "do nothing Republican Congress" did pass tax cuts for ALL, No Child Left Behind and a few other successes.

Cheryl, get a clue, Bush will not be "arrested." Enter the world of reality, OK?

Posted by Bruce July 18, 2007 10:40 AM

RNC Robot,
If the Republicans in Congress would quit lockstepping with W. and blocking the progress on any other issues that are being debated, Congress would be able to get alot more done.

Don't you worry your little head Brucie, everyone knows that the Republic Party members in Congress are being partisan obstructionists and come 08 not only will the Repubs lose the White House they will also become a VERY SMALL minority in Congress and then the rest of our country can move ahead with the business of making America a better place.

John W, for someone as bright as you, your argument is specious.

We all know that yes, Congress has the power of the purse, and they don't need to send up a bill funding this occupation. (I for one would be perfectly happy for that event to happen asap.) However, in the real world, it does not work that way. In the real world, we Dems would be held up to non stop accusations of 'failing to support the troops' 24-7-365. It would never end.

The real question is whether the Republicans have the guts to follow their convictions. Are they going to stop filibustering the bill and allow an 'up and down' vote or not? My guess is that they'll continue their cowardly approach and try to blame the Dems.

Pot meet kettle.

weinerdog43: "In the real world, we Dems would be held up to non stop accusations of 'failing to support the troops' 24-7-365. It would never end."

I think it's time we stop giving a **** about what Republicans will say because they're going to say it anyway. If the conservative media axis is going to churn out outrage and slander regardless of what the Dems do, and if the majority of the public already sides with the Dems on the vast majority of issues, then the answer is clear: ignore the ankle biters and move forward with sound policy, GOP crying be damned.

Well, since no one is dealing with this realistically, why should I? OK - my solution: tons and tons of shaving cream. Just keep it going - where?

Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran - oh - and N. Korea. Just keep drop the shaving cream as foam from a B1 bomber.

At least the blokes will get a good shave and I'll have a good laugh.

Idiot Dems and Repubs couldn't come up with a pragmatic solution if it walked up to them and said, "Hi sailor - buy me a drink?"

Harry

Tim, I'm with ya. But just look at how the MSM is botching the filibuster debate. The reporting is generally so terrible, you can't even tell it's the Repugs that are the ones that are filibustering.

You and I are informed citizens and have made up our minds. What about the sheeple who still get their news from the MSM? As sad as it is, I think the best we're going to get is having to make those Repugs that are up for election pay for their intransigence. This is the repuglican occupation of Iraq. They own it. All the so called moderate repubs...they own it too. They've rubber stamped them selves into irrelevancy. Our job is to make sure that everyone else knows that this is the fault of the Repubs, and them alone.

Both parties are anxious to keep the war going and look like they want it to end. Just look at the text of the "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act" H.R 2956. All of you partisans are being deceived. That's how our two parties work now - they are really just two faces of the same party - the ruling party. Until the Citizens of the US get their heads out of their blind partisanship they will continue to be led along.

BTW - Not one serious candidate out there has committed to pulling the troops out. before you say it - Hillary said "as soon as we can"

I just want to say I agree with everything that John W. has said in his entry today. The Democrats seem not to have the guts for this....and I voted for them! Here's hoping they will figure this one out and soon, before any more innocent lives have to be lost! We have other important issues to get on with. And we need to get these wonderful uniformed folks back home safe, and out of harms way! A former Army First Sergeant....

Don't blame this on the Democrats. The Republicans are the ones who are holding the process back. Damn party politics!

Pathetic idealogues, all.

Same story, different Congress. Nothing gets done unless it is veto-proof, period.

We've had governmental gridlock on most non-obvious issues for many, many years. Don't expect this to change (funny how we expect the Iraqis to get things done quickly in a more fragile society).

Just shut up and listen for a change...

Correct:

Stop the funding, stop the war.

Stop using red herrings,

Remember the flag burning Amendment. LOL.

John E and others, the idea to pull out troops is political, period. The surge has started to work, and if enough pressure is applied, WILL work. The idea that our military cannot succeed is ludicrous and obviously political. If the media had been so predisposed to such lunacy during WWII, we surely would have lost that war.

We must help Iraq to stabilize, and that takes a lot of TIME. To think otherwise is stupid. It takes time to ratify the laws and provisions for a new government. Have you forgotten our own US history? How long did it take for the states to ratify the Constitution and we didn't have insurgents trying to overtake the country. Maliki must walk a tight line or else Iraqis may feel he is more concerned with America than with Iraq and must also work with America to help establish the country's safety.

Our military and police are products of years of honing, and we still have "hiccups", yet you expect Iraq's to function as our own in a matter of a few years?

You can continue your childish "lockstep" comments and other grade school remarks, but the fact is that I take the opinions of the military over the opinions of you, the media, and our politicians, in matters of military capabilities and maneuvers. If politicians and media ran war maneuvers, oh, wait, they did in Viet Nam and look what happened!

We are safer since 9/11 or haven't you heard. There have been numerous plots on America but none have been successful. That can't be said in most other countries.

Most of you won't change your views, but you have at least have heard the truth and some sanity.

The negative side of bringing back our troops - We move the front back to the USA; civilians will be the target rather than trained soldiers; unemployment goes up; inflation goes up; the dollar goes down. We will be back where we were with 40+ years of the democrats.

The problem of supporting troops dates back to Vietnam. If the dems do not support the funding of the way they get tagged with the left over guilt of how marginalized the Vietnam Vets were and how the attacks on that conflict included attacks upon them. It is not so clear, so easy, or so straightforward to say that we should just cut funding. To say that what is going on is just political grandstanding. We have to understand our own history. The democrats clearly understand and face this issue.

I am a veteran of Desert Storm and I know what it is like to be there. I know what it is like to feel supported by the people of this country while they protest what I am doing. In the interests of our troops, we cannot marginalize them and yet we can't leave them in harm's way. They must come home. The question is not if, is not how, or really even why. We know why. We should focus on why. Shouldn't we? Shouldn't we seek to understand the most basic agenda or cause behind all these events.

We could look at the Shia and Sunni issues. They are dealing with a change that has led to a civil war. The Shia were the oppressed majority and now they are oppressing their former oppressors, the Sunni. It, again, comes back to history.

We could then better understand that the present Iraq issues are not about terrorist, altruism, or even to furthering democracy in the world.

We might begin to get an inkling that the issues are about politics, wealth, power, and the bottom-line is oil and who gets paid.

Now the Shia control the oil revenues and the Sunnis do not. Also, the US is positioned to protect its "national interest" which equates to access to oil... and make Bush and his cronies, and their corporate buddies even richer. It is all sick and twisted. I am disgusted that Bush is using US troops to enrich the privileged few in this country, maintain an oil dynasty, and am surprised that so many talk about dems and repubs to the point of missing so much else.

WAKE UP! THINK! Don't just suck up spundit spin and be a sap. I hear so much spin coming out of your comments and not enough thought. Think for yourself for a change. Question the reality that is presented in the news and by the media. Look for underlying motives. Otherwise you are just one of the sleeping masses that are not awake enough to understand.

All of this partison bickering really amazes me. How can we say to the people and factions of Iraq that they are to embrace democracy and a stable government when we can't even agree on things in our own government. I remember a saying, "Physician heal thyself." I think this applies to us in this situation. It took us hundreds of years, including civil war by the way, to reach the state of government that we presently are at. And we still have problems with our political system as you can see. Anytime the majority of a country disagree with the leader of that country for an extended period of time and there is nothing the majority of the country can do about it there is something wrong. Unless you are talking about a dictatorship. And Bush has definitely become our king and monarch. Living above the rest of us. For you that firmly want us to stabilize iraq at any cost think about this. Have you stopped to think what a stabilized iraq would look like if it ever happens? There are 3 religious factions in that country that have existed for many years, the shiites, kurds and sunnis. The country is shiite majority. The Sunnis enjoyed a time period of power thanks to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship (which we helped to establish by the way) but now that the shiites are free they will never go back to listening to their former masters. The kurds kinda just want to be left alone. So a stabilized iraq would look very much like a shiite majority. This would cause another major problem. You know why? Guess what other country in the middle east has a shiite majority? I'll give you a hint. It's very close to Iraq, has ties to terrorism, and doesn't like America very much. You guessed it Iran. So most likely Iran would use its influence to create an alliance with that country and then we would have a stabilized country that cuts off all ties to the West. Don't think they have forgotten the abuse and torture of their citizens at our hands. And don't assume they will be grateful for our help in "stabilizing" their country. And hope and pray that Iraq doesn't become a super-power one day. We could actually be helping to create one of our biggest future enemies. Don't underestimate the future influence Iran will have over Iraq. This is why we can't do any more in Iraq than we already have. We need to refocus our efforts of protecting our borders and targeting al queada in pakistan. And if we must still focus on iraq then we can keep a small number of troops there for counter-insurgency and to help train iraqi forces. But let's face it we made a mistake in invading iraq the way that we did. We isolated other countries that could have helped us stabilize the region and now we are caught up in an occupation that our leader refuses to end because of his pride and guilty conscience. He knows that he was not totally truthful and his motives were not totally pure when he initially gave the order to invade iraq. And he will never admit to making a mistake for fear of facing the angry cries of all the mothers and fathers of the children that he sent to their deaths.

Tim,

I couldn't agree more.

How are the Democrats to make a convincing case to regain the Presidency if they are afraid to use the power they got in the 2006 elections?

The country didn't vote for the Democrats to beg Republican moderates to end the war.

They voted for the Democrats to end the war and the Democrats are failing at the one thing they were sent to do.

Having a sleepover party on Capitol Hill is no substitute for pulling the checkbook away from W.

For Mary and those that agree with her. You do miss the point all of us against this war are making. It was started on false pretenses, continues on very suspicious grounds, and over 3,600 US soldiers have died so far.
We who are against this war and our governments' policies don't give a hoot about Maliki and his disengenuous leadership. We care about more lives being lost. And you can't really be asured we are "safer now than before 9/11"?? Are you nuts? How many people out there actually feel safer walking down the street or taking mass-transit. Tell me you don't think about what might happen at any minute. Remember before this administartion cooked up a story about a phony Al Queda/Sadam link there were no Al Queda in Iraq. That is the direct result of the policies of Cheney/Bush. Why do you think Bush's approval rating is the lowest of any President ever!? Oh yea, it could also be Katrina, erosion of civil rights, corruption, an agressive beligerant foreign policy, Tax cuts for the rich, an F grade on the environment and global warning, and an arrogance unparalled in Amercican Presidential history. He will have a legacy...The worst President this country has ever had. Let's hope we make it to January '09.

You can continue your childish "lockstep" comments and other grade school remarks, but the fact is that I take the opinions of the military over the opinions of you, the media, and our politicians, in matters of military capabilities and maneuvers.
Posted by: Mary | July 18, 2007 3:46 PM

Sorry you limit your info to one source. May I ask what general reports directly to you? Do you go house to house to ask each military family what they think? Can you tell me where those you talk to say the WMDs are?

Mary,

How can you compare the horse and buggy age and trans-Atlantic sail crossing with today's virtual instantaneous travel and communication.

Your assertions are RNC/Fox News talking points without foundation.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Bush came into office with a tanking economy and a brewing massive attack on the country. Way to go Clintons!!

Since that crash the market has gained 88%(!!!!), thanks to Bush's ACTION. Inflation and unemployment are at HISTORICAL lows. Sounds like GREAT leadership to me. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!!!!

Its going to take a long time to solve this problem.
Inmy opinion No One presently has a believable quick fix solution. Let the President carry out his program. Let the military advice him on what is best as they see it on the ground. If the people are in agreement with the actual plan they should vote Republican in the next presidential election. If the Democrats have a real plan to solve the problem in Iraq that convinces the electorate they will have a chance to put into use if they are elected. If this problem is not solved it will come back on us. So whoever is in charge lets be patient with him(her) so we get it right.

No, weinerdog43, my argument is not specious.

Lee Hamilton was whining about how the Democrats don’t have any power to force a change of direction in Iraq because Bush is veto-override proof.

That is the proposition I challenged. I showed that the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives – even without a Senate slumber party – can force Bush’s hand on the issue, thereby refuting Hamilton’s claim of Democrat impotence. And then even YOU agreed with me!!!! If the point is true, as even you admit, then the argument is not specious by definition.

So, how do you attempt to show my argument is specious? You reply with a red herring. You claim that “In the real world, we Dems would be held up to non stop accusations of ‘failing to support the troops 24-7-365. It would never end.”

What you have failed to show is how “non stop accusations” should be of any concern. If you believe your own party’s rhetoric, then you should be absolutely convinced the President and his Republican cronies are the ones who have failed to support the troops by keeping them in Iraq. How many times have we heard Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say such things? And didn’t American public already agree with the Democrats concerning the war in Iraq? Isn’t that why the Democrats largely won the November ’06 elections? Didn’t America give the Democrats a clear mandate to get the troops out of Iraq? If all of this is true, as the Democratic leadership has been claiming for so long, then why should anyone worry about being accused of anything for finally doing something to implement the will of the People?

Between the two of us, one of us is “full of it,” and it isn’t me. You folks are just sportin’ for a reason to blame the Republicans for the war for the hundredth time. You do this because you want to see more Republican politicians committing political suicide by continuing to back the President. This isn’t about Iraq at all. This is all a bunch of political gamesmanship.

Mary,

Please don't draw too many similarities to World War II. There is no national sacrifice. We are not a nation at war, we are a military at war.

If you want to take your argument in that direction, why don't we start rationing gas? After all, isn't the overriding American interest in Southwest Asia the preservation of stable governments to ensure the stability of energy resources? There, I said it. Park your SUV and the strategic interest is now terrorists and their networks and not failing states that control the go juice.

Also I ask you, what sacrifices are being made that is not bore on the shoulder of the American soldier or marine or their families? During the campaign on Guadalcanal, Walter McIlhenny heir to the Tabasco Sauce family company and George Mead of the Mead Paper Company family both fought there. Mead was killed in action and McIlhenny received the Navy Cross for his actions. Who are the affluent families making those sacrifices today? Their sacrifices are only measured at the closing bell on Wall Street.

Ho hum, another 'no it's not because I said so' response from John W.

Look, this is the republican's party's war and occupation. You live in political la-la land. If you want the occupation to end, don't look at us. If you do want it to continue, then you're posting on the wrong thread.

I thought by conceding the obvious would avoid the necessity of pointing out the obvious again: The Political Price is Too High for the Democrats to end the war alone. The occupation won't end until Republicans start VOTING to end it.

I should clarify, however. Your argument is CURRENTLY specious. Perhaps when public pressure becomes overwhelming, we can simply defund the whole mess. At that time, it won't be. You could say politically, your 'solution' is not yet 'ripe'.

Finally, I'm not sportin' for anything. This is the Repub. war and occupation. Period. It is your fault and no amount of crying about it will change the facts on the ground. You guys own it. Sorry.

Mary,

We are not safer. Bush's war, or Rumsfield's - take your pick, has left Osama free among the federated tribal lands of Pakistan to establish a safe harbor and plan to attack the US yet again. How is that safer? Sure served as a good excuse to secure our national oil supply and make Halliburton a lot of money though.

If you say that you listen to the military over others then why not listen to Powell who said we should NOT go into Iraq. The military bowed to the pressure of Bush to throw out the Powell doctrine that said you do not go into an armed conflict without an exit strategy. It was developed after Vietnam so that we could avoid doing that again. Guess what, here we are again because politicians are running things and not the military. Bush picked generals that would not argue with him and marginalized all the rest, the majority. Don't quote military if you are not willing to listen to all of them. What about the recent Joint Chief, I forget his name, who resigned because he would not go along with Bush's war? You need to read and listen to some broader sources of information on what the military thought was on Iraq, not just Rush Limbaugh.

Don't be so naive.

weinerdog43:

You speak with forked tongue. The question is whether the Democrats have the power to stop the war. They have that power. But instead of exercising that power, the Democrats OUTRIGHT LIE to make it sound like the continuation of the war is the all the Republican’s fault. That argument does not lie in the mouth of the party with the actual political power to pull the plug on the war. This is an ugly fact, but a fact all the same.

But now, you all decide to cover this “we-have-no-power” lie with the lie that “the-political-price-is-too-big” – just like you are now doing. Nobody buys it. Democrats claim that Congress’ low approval rating is due to its failure to get us out of Iraq. So, how can Congress’ approval rating do anything but go up if the Democrats get us out of Iraq? You also claim that Democrat politicians swept the November ’06 election because of their commitment to get us out of Iraq. With all this support, how can there be any political fallout from ending the war by a negative vote in the House of Representatives? Now you tell me the political pressure isn’t high enough? You mean Congress’ approval rating has to dip into the single digits before they intend to follow the will of the People? When will the pressure be high enough if it isn’t there now?

I ask, and all I get from you is a song and dance.

The answer is that there can be no high political price to pay if the Democrats are telling the truth. The only way Democrats would pay a “high price” for getting us out of Iraq is if, contrary to their assertions, Americans really don’t want us to withdraw in the space of a year regardless of the consequences. You will suffer no political fallout unless Pelosi, Murtha, Reid and the rest of the cut-and-run crew are way out in left field (no pun intended).

So, which is it? You can’t have it both ways. You are either telling the truth, in which case there will be no high price to pay, or you are lying, in which case you are already in trouble. If you all are telling the truth, there can be no reason not to pull the plug.

So, please, do us all a favor and write your Democ-rat Congress-persons and tell them to crap or get off the pot. The rest of us are tired of the propaganda and B.S. This is getting to be even more obnoxious than all the ankle-biting that occurred during Clinton’s impeachment.

P.S. Don’t tell me that pulling the plug will needlessly “polarize” the political arena. It’s a little too late to worry about that now.

John W., nearly all these Leftists here speak with forked tongue. They keep talking about how dumb Bush is, yet he won two elections against them and it wasn't until 2006 that the Dems finally beat him.
They say he lied about Iraq, but me, bruce and others have shown them the quotes from all their Democratic leaders dating back into the 1990s about Iraq and WMDs, Iraq and terrorism, etc. They say Bush fooled them. Did he fool them in 1998 too? 1999?
Heck, there has been the occasonal liberal in here who has suffered the wrath of the Loony Left because they weren't loony enough.
They say the stock market in the 90s was good, but bad now. It's all paper today, yet much of the stock market growth in the 1990s was due to tech and Internet companies skyrocketing without ever posting a profit.
It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.

And bailing out of there right now is not a "responsible" way of getting out there. Hamiton is dead right.

Hamilton was also right about Saddam Hussein's Iraq having at least some links to al Qaeda.

US military power has brought poor results in Iraq and Afghanistan after years of effort, and Mr Hamilton wants to attack Pakistan now?