Bad week for Dems on the war

The bad week is for the troops in Iraq who aren't a day closer to seeing Dubya's "Mission Accomplished."

The Iraqi Government isn't any closer to political reconcilliation than they were a year ago. The troops are treading water while Dubya fiddles.

If the dems want to do something why don't they actually make the Republicans Fillibuster? Sure, the bills would just be vetoed by Bush regardless, but at least they would be showing some much needed back bone.

This is funny:

Republicans, however, said Reid is playing political games and wasting vast amounts of time that could be devoted to other legislative efforts.

Who the heck do they think they are kidding? The GoP complaining about waisting time? Who was it that spent time yesterday, I MEAN JUST YESTERDAY, voting on condemning moveon.org for a stupid add? Do they realize how stupid that is? Maybe we Americans do have a short attention span, BUT I CAN REMEMBER YESTERDAY!!!

Actually, it was a much worse week for those who were killed and maimed in the war. Not one of the 535 cowards in Congress, nor the Murderer in the Whitehouse, suffered so much as a scratch, so relatively speaking a "bad week" for them is really not so bad.

Aww, another no good, horrible, bad day for Harry and his cronies. Maybe he can find some cheap land to cheer himself up.

Bad week for Dems on the war. Should read bad week for the American people. Then again as Mr Greenspan points out, it's about oil.

Bad week? I don't think so. Why does the Democrat make it look so hard? It's so easy to stop this war. Just don't fund it. Period.

In order to spend money on the war, you need a spending bill. If there is no spending bill, then there is no funding available for the war. You don't even have to worry about a veto or a Republican filibuster.

Lou,

It takes 60 votes to end a Republican filibuster supporting getting more troops killed in Iraq.

It takes 67 votes to override Dubya's veto getting more troops killed in Iraq.

Bad week for Dems is a great week for the AMerican people, or at least the good American people (i.e., not the Loony Left).

Yes, Loon, Iraq was all about the OIL. Everything is about OIL. Us "neocons" want oil to reach $100 a barrel and up, maybe even $200 a barrel. I want to pay $5 a gallon for gas and want my heating bill to be a minimum of $500 a month.

Go back to sleep, Loon.

What you are seeing is that thinking
Senate democrats (except for Hillary and a few others) are distancing themselves from the kook left, International Answer, the Move-On dopes and the KOS krazies. They know that the vast majority of Democrats like me support the centrist DNC, are middle of the road, support our military, and believe in our country. We don't want our party taken over the by Marxist-Leninists (by their own admission) in the Answer coalition.

Only one bad week would be good news.

But this week's events could be bad news for the Dems in their race to capture the WH in 2008. Especially if events transpire such that either Iraq or national security or both become the paramount issues in the minds of voters. And that depends a lot on world events such as what a couple of guys in a cave
in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan decide to do.

Why are the Dems having so much trouble putting through even relatively
innocuous Iraq legislation (like the troop rest provision that failed) to stop the war.

Either the Congress is highly unrepresentative of the electorate on these two issues or the polls are wrong and Americans do want
a major presence in Iraq indefinitely, even if it costs $100 billion in taxpayer dollars per year, as it now does, and thousands more American lives.

And if the electorate is more warlike than polls would suggest, the Repubs are not in as poor a position as they seem to think with respect to hanging on to the WH. Why would those middle of the road yet warklike Dems necessarily support a Dem candidate like the controversial Hillary, the liberal Obama or the even more liberal John Edwards. Why not support a warlike but socially liberal Giuliani, for example.

We'll see. But many Dems are way, way too optimistic about their chances.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO VOTES, IT'S WHO COUNTS THE VOTE THAT MAKE SOMETHING MATTER.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THEY CALL GEORGE BIG POPPY, SO DEMS THROW YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR AND WAVE THEM LIKE YOU JUST DON'T CARE.

48 Fillibusters later, what can America expect but THE SAME BUSH TIME, SAME BUSH CHANNEL. The GOP is dragging their name through the bathroom stalls in america. It's only a matter of time before the next "I LIKE LITTLE BOYS II comes to your local GOP Arkins Movie Theatre.

America has taken it on the chin, the Troops have definitely taken in the chin, their wives have taken it on the chin, their children have taken it on then chin, even the ones that have never ever seen mommy or daddy, or maybe never see mommy and daddy because of the GOP dictation as to what goes on on the Ground in Iraq.

43 REPUBLICANS DID YOU ANOTHER FAVOR, AND WILL DO YOU ANOTHER FAVOR AND ANOTHER.

So lets not be all worried Harry. THE VOTERS HAVE YOUR BACK.

Doug:

The problem with the Democrats in Congress is that they try to manage this war with positive legislation. It is only when one resorts to positive legislation that one has to worry about vetoes and cloture votes.

On the other hand, if the Democrats make the Republicans take all steps in Congress to keep the war going, they have the upper hand. At some time in the near future, the Republicans will introduce a new bill for yet more war funds. At that time, the Democrats merely need to vote en masse against that bill. Given their majority in both the House and Senate, the bill would fail.

At that point, the President would find himself without funds to further prosecute the war in Iraq, plain and simple. He can’t force his position on anyone through a veto because there is nothing to veto. Nor does it require a majority vote of 60 senators to send this matter to the President. It doesn’t even have to get to the Senate.

At that point, the Democrats – and everyone else who wants us out of Iraq – have won. If another bill supporting war funding gets introduced, the Democrats merely have to repeat the process. Its as simple as the instructions on a shampoo bottle: lather, rinse, repeat. After this happens a few times, the President will have no choice but to order the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

So, Lou was right. The Democrats have to stop the positive efforts to control this war. They just have to negative the war funding and that’s it.

Doug,

What Lou is saying is that Congress has the power to not submit any bill for a vote, including a funding bill. They simply don't let it come to a vote. No bill, no filibuster and no veto. The problem is Bush will hold the troops hostage for his pig headed, political agenda. Now that's Un-American.

And John D,

Forget it, my mom said if I don't have anything nice to say, don't say it.

John W., Tim,

I hear you, loud & clear.

John W. and Tim, what makes you think the Democrats will summon the courage to cut off funding when they had the same opportunity and caved in six months ago?

Why do not the Dems filibuster? They need only 41 votes (or abstentions) to sustain a filibuster against the next supplemental appropriation for the war? That kills the legislation - completely veto proof and then Bush must come to them with a bill they find acceptable.
At the same time they could put on the floor a bill to bring the occupying forces home quickly and safely. Let's see how many will vote against that and whether Bush will dare veto it.
Could it be that the Dems really do not want to end the war because they do not want to defy their masters in the military industrial complex and at AIPAC?
Hmmmm.
See: FilibusterForPeace.org
john walsh

Bad week for Democrats = Good week for America.

Herbie H,

I frankly don't think they will. I was just stating what they could do. I agree with you, they don't have the political will to do that and as I said, Bush will respond irresponsibly and unfortunately, the troops will suffer.

And Bruce,

Why don't you post an original thought? Your buddy John D. already posted your partisan BS. An obstructionist Congress is good for Americans? What a load of crap.

Bad week for the dems is a good week for the troops that want to finish the job.

Bad week for Dems is a great week for the AMerican people, or at least the good American people (i.e., not the Loony Left).

Posted by: John D | September 21, 2007 12:15 PM

Get off the crack pipe John D. Your as open minded as a lobotomy recipient!!!

Bruce = RNC stooge.

Logic Prisoner = Colossal Dumbass.

John W. and Tim, what makes you think the Democrats will summon the courage to cut off funding when they had the same opportunity and caved in six months ago?

Posted by: Herbie H. | September 21, 2007 2:44 PM

I have no such illusions. My personal opinion is that they don't want to get out of Iraq, and that they are just using their vocal opposition to gain political brownie points. After all, they've had the power to vote down further funding for almost a year, and at least two funding resolutions have been passed since then. Doesn't sound like they are serious to me. Their lack of action has spoken louder than their words.